The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Public Petition: Siting of a Telecommunications Mast at Cavehill Road, Belfast

Mr Speaker: Mr Alban Maginness has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Mr Alban Maginness: I beg leave to present a petition, which has been signed by more than 1,600 residents of north Belfast, opposing the siting of a telecommunications mast on or near the footpath on Cavehill Road, Belfast. The petition cites the potential health risks, the adverse impact on the visual amenity near Cavehill and the impact on the general environment as good reasons for opposition to the mast.
I present the petition and indicate my support and concern for the campaign.
Mr A Maginness moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Mr Speaker: I shall forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Employment Bill: First Stage

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 11/01] to make provision for statutory rights to paternity and adoption leave and pay; to amend the law relating to statutory maternity leave; to make provision about flexible working; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill (NIA 10/01) be agreed.
Following the legislative changes on economic development that led to the establishment of Invest Northern Ireland, the Department is focused on updating Northern Ireland company law with a series of legislative measures. The Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill is the latest of the four company law measures that I am bringing to the Assembly during the current session. It is the most technical of the four Bills, but, nonetheless, it is an important measure for the financial investment sector in Northern Ireland. The Bill will ensure that Northern Ireland investment firms have the same opportunities for open-ended investment companies (OEICs) as their competitors in Great Britain, thus removing any potential disadvantages to the local investment sector.
To help those Members who are unfamiliar with the subject, I will provide a broad definition of the nature of an OEIC. An OEIC invests in securities, such as the shares of other companies. It issues shares to its investors, and the value of that capital may go up or down as shares are either issued or cancelled. A fund manager, who must be authorised by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA), manages its investments.
The assets of, or investments owned by, an OEIC must be held by a depositary, who must also be authorised by the FSA. The depositary plays a key role, similar to that of a unit trust trustee, and must be legally independent of the directors of the OEIC. Details of the performance of individual OEICs are regularly reported in the financial pages of the broadsheet newspapers.
Owning shares in an OEIC is an efficient and flexible means of investing in equities and other securities, with all the opportunities for capital growth that that entails. By pooling their investments, an OEIC’s shareholders can invest more cheaply than if they owned shares directly, while at the same time spreading their risks and using expert fund managers. That means that OEICs can extend the benefits of wider share ownership to investors who lack the expertise, time, resources or inclination to choose their own stocks.
The current legislation for the regulation of OEICs in Northern Ireland provides only for the operation of the type of company permitted by Directive 85/611/EEC on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS). Non-UCITS OEICs offer a wider range of investment schemes, including money market and property funds and funds of funds. The investment fund management sector in the UK argued that it would be desirable for the Government to legislate for the establishment of non-UCITS OEICs in the UK to ensure the continued success of the OEIC as a UK investment instrument. The UK Government legislated for that change in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which applies to Great Britain only. The Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill proposes to extend to the Northern Ireland investment sector the ability to form OEICs whose investment powers would take them outside the scope of the UCITS Directive, enabling them to offer the extended range of open-ended investment schemes.
The second effect of the Bill is to transfer the registration of Northern Ireland OEICs from the Northern Ireland Companies Registry to the FSA. That would mean that, as well as regulating OEICs in Northern Ireland, the FSA would be responsible for maintaining a register of them. Under existing regulations, the Northern Ireland Companies Registry undertakes the registration of OEICs, while regulation is undertaken by the FSA.
Those arrangements constitute a cumbersome and unnecessary splitting of responsibilities. The new provisions, in the form of draft Regulations that will come before the Assembly, will, therefore, represent a significant rationalisation that benefits the local investment sector. That is because the Financial Services Authority will act as a single point of contact for OEICs in the United Kingdom.
The third effect of the Bill is to enable the creation of Regulations that will further simplify the governance of OEICs. Those will make provisions for OEICs broadly the same as those for unit trusts, provisions that are contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Therefore, there should be no significant divergence in the Regulations that govern unit trusts and OEICs. That will help investors because OEICs and unit trusts are similar investment vehicles, and such divergence could cause confusion. The proposed subordinate legislation will be laid in the Assembly if the Bill is passed.
The decision to register an OEIC will continue to be voluntary, based on commercial consideration. The Bill is intended to offer an extended choice of OEICs to the investment fund management sector in Northern Ireland, similar to that which is available in Great Britain. The Bill will also streamline the arrangements for registration and regulation under a single body, the Financial Services Authority.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will also ensure that investors in the new type of OEIC are protected. That will be done by drafting Regulations that will ensure that those companies are governed by the same standards of investor protection that apply to authorised unit trusts. Although no OEICs are registered in Northern Ireland, the Bill represents my Department’s commitment to keep the legal framework for businesses here at the forefront of international best practice. The Bill achieves that by giving Northern Ireland’s investment sector the opportunity to take advantage of the extended range of OEIC investment vehicles. That demonstrates that Northern Ireland is a modern economy, anchored in legislation that creates the conditions that allow business to develop and prosper.

Mr Jim Wells: This is not the most glamorous of subjects to speak about, but it is important. I welcome the legislation. Departmental officials briefed the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment well on the matter, and the Committee asked the relevant questions on how the legislation would affect investors in Northern Ireland. The Committee unanimously decided that the legislation should be supported, so I do not intend to pick holes or complain about it.
Open-ended investment companies are affectionately known as OEICs, which is an unfortunate acronym. They succeed the old unit trusts, and many Members are investors in unit trusts. I must declare an interest — I hold four investments in OEICs. The returns were substantial until the events of September 11, and the rapid decline of share prices since that date has meant that the Jim Wells benevolent fund has taken a series of knocks from which I do not know if it will recover. Therefore, I have direct experience of investment. As everyone knows, under the old unit trust system there were bid and offer prices, and the spread was normally 5% to 5·5%. There is a single, transparent pricing system under OEICs that means that investors will know almost immediately the value of their funds.
As the Minister said, fund information is published regularly. Indeed, it is published daily in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ and the ‘Financial Times’. Therefore, investors will know the value of their holdings within a day and can calculate it by multiplying the number of units that they hold by the price quoted in the newspaper.
The legislation is permissive; Northern Ireland institutions do not offer OEICs. The legislation simply enables companies such as Northern Bank, First Trust Bank, et cetera, to establish those funds if they wish. We should have no difficulty in supporting that, as this is parity legislation.
Shares in OEICs are regulated in exactly the same way as in unit trusts, so investors are protected. I am glad that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has provided a rigorous and high standard of protection to investors. There has been only one recent example of skulduggery, and, as soon as it was discovered, the FSA acted quickly to rectify the situation. All investors, including myself, were put back into the same position that they would have been in had the discrepancy not arisen. We can progress with a great deal of confidence that this part of the financial market is well regulated, and so this technical change does not undermine investors’ confidence in these vehicles.
It is unfortunate that there is limited investment in unit trusts, OEICs and investment trusts in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, this is an excellent way of gaining exposure to the stock market without the risk inherent in investing in one or two companies. Only when people here have a wider interest in investing in the stock market will Northern Ireland start to establish its own venture capital trusts and other vehicles that invest directly in Northern Ireland firms. We tend to be somewhat conservative and put our money under the bed, which I cannot understand. We tend to put money safely into deposit accounts in banks where it gains a poor rate of interest and does nothing for investment in our industry.
Aside from those minor points, the House should support this legislation. I hope that it will be enacted in time for financial institutions in Northern Ireland to set up OEICs. Perhaps, one day, one of those funds will invest entirely in shares of Northern Ireland companies, which would enable Northern Ireland people to invest directly in the future of the Province. The present difficulty is that we have quite a narrow base. Even our largest company, Viridian, would be very small in the scheme of things on the London Stock Exchange. However, I hope that, as there are already funds that invest entirely in Scottish companies or Belgian companies, we will have an OEIC that will invest entirely in Northern Ireland, so that people can have a stake in the well-being of our plcs.

Sir Reg Empey: The acronyms are difficult to wrestle with. I note that the Member’s benevolent fund took a dive after 11 September. However, we are all confident that a sufficiently broad back can withstand such pressures and that it will emerge triumphant in due course. The question is how some of us can get a slice of it. Joking aside, the Member made a serious point. We all recognise that we have a grossly underdeveloped financial services sector. The Republic concentrated on attracting financial services to its new centre in Dublin, which was successful.
The Department has a commitment to ensuring that our legislation meets best practice and international standards. While there are currently no companies trading in this fashion, that will not always be the case, so we must ensure that our legal framework is modern, up-to-date and has the benefit, as the Member pointed out, of ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected. We must remember that people may be investing their life savings in such companies.
People suffered shocks in recent years after investing in shareholdings through endowment mortgages and other forms of investment. They experienced shortfalls. It is most important to ensure that consumers are protected, so the involvement of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the streamlining of the administrative processes for establishing and registering these companies, under the remit of the FSA, is a positive development that avoids duplication and will ensure that Jim Wells’s benevolent fund will grow and prosper.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill (NIA 10/01) be agreed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

One Elected Position

Ms Jane Morrice: I beg to move
That this Assembly, recognising the volume of work involved in local government, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the UK and European Parliaments, opposes double-jobbing and calls on MLAs to dedicate themselves to one elected position only.
The Women’s Coalition is moving this motion because the time is right for debate to be opened on the practice of public representatives holding more than one elected position. With elections to the Assembly due in less than a year and the long-awaited review of public administration and local government gathering momentum, we need to send a clear message to the electorate that things will change for the better under this Administration. As far as the Women’s Coalition is concerned, changing for the better means ending what we describe as the unacceptable practice that allows elected representatives to hold dual, and even multiple, mandates.
The Women’s Coalition believes that the principle of one member, one mandate is fundamental to best democratic practice. In fact, we absolutely fail to understand how the practice of one person holding a number of elected positions is tolerated either by parties, within Governments, or by the public at large. Figures that are available for all to see show that some Assembly Members hold as many as three elected positions. According to the figures that research has supplied to me, out of 108 Members, 60 are councillors, 12 are MPs and one is an MEP. Also, a total of five hold three elected positions.
We need to think about what that means in terms of time, energy and commitment, about the responsibilities of an elected position and about whether it is possible for one person to carry out two or even three full-time elected roles. We are talking about separate locations, involving air travel, overnight accommodation and extremely demanding responsibilities — huge responsibilities, as we have found. Is it right that this practice of people stretching themselves to the limit and spreading themselves too thinly should continue, and is the service being provided correctly?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am very interested in your analysis, and wonder if you apply it to yourself. Are you doing your job correctly when you have a second job with the Laganside Corporation?

Mr Speaker: I suggest to the Member that he speaks through the Chair.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Given that the Member has raised this, I wonder if she applies the same principle to herself. She has another job with the Laganside Corporation, for which I think she gets £7,000 a year. Is she doing that job correctly, and is she doing this job here correctly? Is it not the case that she can do them both because they complement each other? I should like to know, because people might think that there is an element of hypocrisy in this motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am glad to take that intervention. I remind the Member that the motion refers to elected positions and responsibilities. I also remind him that my work on the Laganside board, which the Minister, Nigel Dodds, was commending yesterday at Laganside, takes one morning a month.
That is different from holding three elected positions that involve flights to London and Strasbourg and time out of Northern Ireland away from the constituency and work on legislation, which is vital.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: I will not give way at the moment. [Interruption].
A week may be a long time in politics, but it is not enough time to cover three separate elected roles.

John Taylor: Briefly, I want clarification. Why is the Member against an MLA having two mandates but in favour of an MLA having other jobs outside the House?

Ms Jane Morrice: The big difference is that these are elected positions in which one has a responsibility to the electorate, the voters. There must be clarity on the work that is being done. In speaking about responsibility to the electorate, we can argue that the people vote us into these positions and, therefore, accept that we can carry out these roles. I am trying to make it clear that separate people carry out these roles in other places, and that is not clear to the public. It is important to note that there is recognition of this incompatibility in the European and the Scottish Parliaments and in the Welsh Assembly.

John Taylor: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: No, I have given way once to Lord Kilclooney.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Member agree that the conditions that pertained in Northern Ireland in the last 30 years were instrumental in bringing about the conditions that she now criticises? Does she agree that the people who willingly gave their time and put their lives on the line for the democratic process are the only reservoir of political experience that we have available? Perhaps in the future, we may be able to build that up, but there are good reasons now for people having multiple positions.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is a useful point, and it is exactly what I am saying — we are in a new dispensation. Changes are occurring, and we want to be able to let people know that we are committed to change. I acknowledge the Ulster Unionist Party’s recognition of the relative incompatibility of holding more than one elected position as its members sometimes do.
I want to know what effect that has on the work and on the legislatures wherein these people with dual or triple mandates hold office. I cannot speak from personal experience about the situation in Westminster or Strasbourg, but here there are serious problems with attendance at debates or getting quorums in Committees. We have all seen Clerks desperately phoning around, trying to get people to come to Committees because there is no quorum. Where are they?
We are also aware of the slow progress of legislation in the Assembly. What is slowing that progress? Is there any correlation — dare I even suggest that there may be — between the fact that Ministers in the Executive are also MPs and councillors?
I would not dare suggest that there was any link, but I want it borne in mind that there is a certain block on the work going through the Assembly.
We talk of power sharing as if the only thing that matters in this new dispensation is the division of spoils between Unionists and Nationalists. Mr Ken Robinson made the point that if we are striving for equality in the truest sense of the word, and if we want to increase democratic participation, we should be freeing up those positions to encourage more women, younger people, those from ethnic minorities and many others to come forward and become involved in politics so that it is truly representative of the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, elected positions are being hoarded, and we kid ourselves, our parties and the electorate that no one else could do the job better. If parties are unable to find suitably qualified candidates for election, that says more about those parties than the voters.
We are moving into an important phase of consultation on the review and reform of public administration. Local government will be an important element of that review. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Jane Morrice: When the new legislation is eventually introduced, some 60 Assembly Members who are also local councillors are going to find themselves in a very unusual position. If the proposals are accepted, they will be voting to give local government more power, more work and increased remuneration. We do not have to look too far to see what legislatures beyond this jurisdiction are doing. It has been recognised that holding a dual mandate is no longer accepted practice. In Scotland and Wales the need to reduce that practice has been acknowledged, and only a few stalwart Members are left working as local councillors or MPs.
At community level, a motion has been passed in the European Parliament, pointing out that dual mandates are incompatible, and that holding them will be discouraged from 2004. However, the UK has secured derogation from that until 2009.
There may not be much sympathy on the floor of the Assembly for the motion, given the number of councillors present. However, the public will be more sympathetic. There is a great deal of support for the principle — [Interruption].

John Taylor: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: I cannot give way; my time is up. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Jane Morrice: The public will support the notion of one Member, one mandate, and we will see that at the next elections. I rest my case.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I agree with most of the sentiments in Jane Morrice’s speech and motion, though I would qualify them somewhat. We are all aware of the public disquiet about the levels of reward or salary for MLAs and the perceived productivity or effectiveness of public representatives in Northern Ireland, especially in the Assembly. Some of that is to do with perception, and some criticisms are unfair, but we cannot afford to be complacent.
There is clear evidence that a multiple mandate leads to a reduction in the attendance of those individuals who are members of a variety of institutions. For example, recent attendance statistics for the European Parliament show that our party’s representative, Mr Jim Nicholson, attends between 80% and 90% of debates in the Parliament in Strasbourg — that is because he has a single mandate. In contrast, the attendance records of our two other MEPs, Dr Paisley and Mr Hume, are much poorer. Their attendance rates are about 40% to 50% — about half that of Mr Nicholson — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Some of our politicians may claim to be remarkable individuals. However, that remarkable ability does not stretch to allowing them to be in more than one place at a time.

Mr Speaker: It is generally accepted in most responsible elected bodies that Members should not comment on Members of other elected chambers, not least because those Members are not present to defend themselves. Likewise, the same respect is accorded to Members of this elected body.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I sound a note of caution about how the motion would relate to the overlap that Members who are both MLAs and councillors experience. I am not a councillor, but 60 of our 108 Members are. Experiences and responsibilities clearly overlap in the two levels of government. However, some individuals who are both councillors and MLAs can do both jobs well — they find them mutually supportive.
Councillors are not paid a salary, so it cannot be argued that to hold both posts results in a multiplication of financial rewards, although it could be argued that councillors receive some expense payment, albeit a relatively small amount.
We must bear in mind that we are at a transitional point. The Assembly is a new institution and, until relatively recently, there were some doubts about its survival. Given that, it is understandable that many councillors were also elected as MLAs. However, it should be the long-term aspiration of all parties to strive to reach the position where, as far as possible, councillors are not MLAs and vice versa.
I want assurance that council commitments are not the cause of failure to maintain a quorum in Committee meetings. Many of us have observed the phenomenon that occurs in Committees at 4.00 pm or 4.30 pm when certain Members leave because they have a council meeting to attend that evening.
Potential conflicts of interest will arise, two of which have already been mentioned: the recent Local Government (Best Value) Bill and the forthcoming review of local administration. The public will perceive that councillors who are also MLAs have a conflict of interest. That also applies to Ministers who are councillors, although I understand that the ministerial code of practice makes some provision for that. With the various qualifications attached, I support the motion.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The first thing that struck me about the motion is that its first line calls for recognition of the volume of work involved in serving the various institutions. It occurs to me that much of the work of public representatives goes unrecognised. It is important that we recognise the volume of work that public representatives, by and large, carry out in all the roles that we are considering.
The burden is particularly onerous on Members of the Assembly, Members of Parliament at Westminster and Members of the European Parliament. The SDLP agrees with that part of the motion. My party recently changed its constitution to enable it to work towards that position. Mandates gained should be recognised and cannot be denied. A mandate has authority, and it will take time for any change to filter through. Therefore as a party we aspire to such a position on those responsibilities.
There are several reasons why we disagree, however, with the inclusion of local government in the motion. The concept of public service is crucial in local government. It is not a job in the sense that the motion refers to "double-jobbing". It is certainly not a salaried job. Those of us who have been councillors for many years have done so while continuing with our normal working lives. That is what public service means. We should not attempt to deny that concept; it is valuable, and we should try to ensure that it is maintained.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member agree, in the spirit of that public service, that the former leader of his party and the leader of my party, and others, by working so tirelessly over the years, delivered a peace package of millions of pounds for Northern Ireland under the Delors scheme, which provided a foundation for this community to go forward; and that if they had left it to others, we would still be waiting for that money to be delivered?

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Yes. Indeed, Mr Ken Robinson also mentioned the importance of public service over the past 30 years, and the commitment of people to deliver for the community at every level. That should also be recognised. However, my comments were particularly concerned with the public service element of local government.
Perhaps the proposer’s party does not have as much experience or involvement in local government as others in the House. It is understandable that its members may not fully appreciate the concept of asking people to give of their time to serve the community at local government level. To describe the work of local government as "jobbing" of any kind is a contradiction, and it does not sit well with my party. We will, therefore, oppose the motion on those grounds.
My personal view, not necessarily shared by all my Colleagues, is that the Assembly and local government are in danger of becoming too separate. It could become a case of "us and them". That would not be healthy. At least, in the interim period, one of the best ways of ensuring that that gap does not widen is the involvement of Members at both levels.
In that way, we can ensure that this institution and local councils work together rather than in opposition. If people do not take that as a credible point, they should consider the conflict between central Government and local government in England, which has been clearly documented over the past 20 or 25 years, and note how destructive a gap a "them and us" syndrome can be. I see some merit in Members also serving in local councils, at least in the short term.

Mr Peter Weir: I agree with many of the remarks made by Mr ONeill. Unlike Dr Birnie, I will be resolutely opposing the motion, and I hope that I will carry the support of many Members. Judging from the interventions of many of his Colleagues, Dr Birnie may also find that many Ulster Unionists will oppose the motion; that is for them to decide.
I oppose the motion on three grounds: it is anti-democratic; it is hypocritical; and it aims at the wrong target. It may be a very old-fashioned view in the new dispensation, but I happen to believe that people get the politicians that they deserve and the politicians that they vote for, and the best system is to allow people to vote for whomever they want. Any attempt to impose standards that specify that people should serve in only one Chamber and should not be allowed to run for a second Chamber — or have to give one up if they are elected to it — is profoundly undemocratic.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member makes an interesting point about people being allowed to vote for whomever they want, but does he not admit that the party decides on the person that the electorate vote for?

Mr Peter Weir: The electorate votes for the individuals that it wants. It can vote for candidates representing a range of political parties, and that is democracy. Anything that tampers with that is profoundly undemocratic. We should not be surprised that the Women’s Coalition is taking up an anti-democratic stand. After all, this is the same party that mothered the Civic Forum, for whose members not a single vote was cast, and whose achievements can be written on the back of a postage stamp.
When we went through the charade of the election of the First Minister last November, that same party was rehearsing for the pantomime even before the Alliance Party had donned the pantomime horse’s clothes. I should not therefore be surprised by an anti-democratic proposal from the Women’s Coalition. I am also disappointed in the motion on the grounds that it is hypocritical because, if she were here today, the proposer’s leader could vouch for the fact that she stood for election to Westminster, presumably on the basis that she would have some sort of dual mandate.

Ms Jane Morrice: Absolutely not. Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Weir: I have given way once already.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am quite agreeable for Members to give way, and for a certain amount of toing and froing, but it begins to become inappropriate when those who have either already made speeches, or have the opportunity to make further speeches, intervene repeatedly. If this were the Committee Stage of a Bill, that would not be unreasonable. However, I must ask Members who have the opportunity to speak not to make interventions in this way, but to restrain themselves, marshall their points and bring them to the Chamber at a suitable time. Otherwise, it all gets completely out of order.

Mr Peter Weir: The proposer’s leader aside, my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr has already highlighted the sheer hypocrisy of the position. The proposer of the motion is also double-jobbing on the Laganside Corporation. I gather that the pay is around £7,500 a year, but I was not aware that it was for only one morning a month. Perhaps the Member will be changing her name by deed poll to Naomi Campbell, given the rates of pay that she seems to expect. I understand the high degree of overlap between local councils and the Assembly where much of the work is basically the same.
As a public representative, one deals with constituency complaints. I fail to see a direct correlation between being a member of Laganside Corporation and representing North Down in the Assembly. On behalf of the constituents of North Down, I cannot see that they have gained advantages to the tune of £7,500 from Jane Morrice’s being a member of Laganside Corporation. I look forward to the announcement of her resignation from that board in her winding-up speech, if she truly believes in the spirit of the motion.
The motion is targeted wrongly, because there is an overlap between the various jobs that public representatives do. However, that is recognised by the fact that MLAs who are also MPs receive only one third of their Assembly salary, because much of their Assembly work overlaps with work in Westminster. There is a large overlap between council work and Assembly work, and it would be a shame if we were to become completely detached from local government.
There is no correlation between the amount of work that people do and their having one mandate or two. Since the last general election, the majority of my party’s MPs who are also MLAs have had a better voting record in the House of Commons than David Burnside, who is a single mandate MP. All my party’s MPs have a better voting record than Jeffrey Donaldson.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already advised the House that it is not appropriate to mention Members of other places by name who cannot defend themselves. Members may choose to refer to such matters in a less definite way, but they must not refer to Members by name. Members of this House would think it inappropriate if they were mentioned by name in other places and found it impossible to respond in a proper parliamentary fashion. I ask the House to observe that.

Mr Peter Weir: In that spirit, Mr Speaker, one Member of my party, who is an MLA and an MP, has a voting record that is 80 times greater than that of a former leader of another party in this House who was formerly an MLA. There is no direct correlation between someone’s being a single mandate representative and the job being done properly. One MP has voted against her own party on 24 occasions. One questions whether that is a good use of time. A former MP, who has now been replaced by someone who is also an MLA representing a constituency to the north of our current location, was noted for his poor attendance and poor work at Westminster. I am surprised that the American security forces are not searching his former offices for Osama bin Laden, who could hide there without any trouble.
During a former period of devolution, from 1921 to 1972, it was standard practice for people to be MPs either at Stormont or Westminster. There has been critical comment, especially from the Unionist Benches, that the Unionist case suffered — and by extension the Northern Ireland case— because a second eleven was often being sent to Westminster. However, I want to praise a former Stormont and Westminster MP, Lord Fitt, who had a greater impact at Westminster in the 1960s than many MPs who were there with a single mandate.
The motion is targeted wrongly, because the Assembly is based on the examples of Scotland and Wales. If we had managed to get Northern Ireland down to the proportionate level of representation that exists in Scotland and Wales, perhaps there would be some merit in Members having more than one mandate. The Scottish Parliament has approximately 20% more Members than this Assembly, yet it represents three times the population. Wales has the twice the population of Northern Ireland. However, the total number of Welsh Assembly Members and MPs is still less than the number of Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Ireland is overrepresented in the Assembly, but not at Westminster. However, Northern Ireland cannot afford the luxury of having people representing the electorate in only one body.
Of much greater concern is not that Members sit in more than one Chamber — they are doing the same job in each; it is the number of Members who have served on quangos. Ms Morrice is the ideal example. At least councillors, MPs, MEPs and Assembly Members are people who do similar jobs, have similar levels of representation and deal with similar problems. When a person visits his constituency office, or contacts an Assembly Member, he does not delineate his problem as an Assembly matter, a council matter or a parliamentary matter: he wants public representation. It is much more serious when people are double-jobbing through employment in quangos. The Assembly should investigate that issue more closely than the one proposed in the motion.
What ultimately lies behind the motion? It could be naivety on the part of the Women’s Coalition; however, that remains to be seen. Ms Morrice told the Assembly that it is about "freeing up" jobs and opportunities. I believe that it is about freeing up opportunities for the Women’s Coalition. That party has an abysmal record of failure in elections. It managed to get only two people elected to the Assembly and one to a local council. Together with its proposal to limit the period in which councillors can serve to two terms, the Woman’s Coalition is attempting to knock out of some of the political "big hitters" in various parties to give itself a much better chance of being elected to the Assembly and local councils. That is what lies behind the motion. I urge Members to reject the motion because it is anti-democratic, hypocritical and wrongly directed.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The motion is really about service delivery; and to that end it is somewhat disparaging. However, all parties should consider it. One can understand why such a motion, and the questions it raises, finds its way to the Assembly Floor. All Members have experienced the negative aspects of political double acts that have been part and parcel of local politics for more than 50 years. It is hard for some parties to break the mould.
The motion raises the issue of the ability of elected representatives to carry out their work effectively if they are doubling up on jobs — Ms Morrice and other Members have mentioned that. Proper methods of accountability should sort out that matter. However, the motion also questions the integrity and intelligence of the electorate who have elected politicians to jobs in local councils, the Assembly and Westminster — and will, possibly, elect representatives to Dáil Éireann.
The motion implies that it is not humanly possible for one person to perform the roles of councillor, Assembly Member and MP and give effective service to their constituents. That may be the case for some individuals. Although Members acknowledge the volume of work involved in the Assembly, they must also acknowledge that there are politicians who are dedicated to the electorate and who have successfully managed to combine their various elected roles and give their constituents the benefit of both worlds.

A Member: Sinn Féin/IRA.

Ms Mary Nelis: We also know those politicians who have winged it for many years and have relied on their media coverage as a substitute for hard constituency work.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mary Nelis: I will not.
We have all heard the single-transferable speeches, just as we have witnessed poor quality of service to the electorate. In principle, Sinn Féin supports the concept that one elected position is the preferred option.
However, that is predicated more on the notion of stability than that of capability. For practical reasons, parties have chosen, to stand for seats in the Assembly, candidates who, in many instances, have already proven that they are electable and who have a good track record in local constituency work.
Therefore, it could be argued that the motion is not only about capability, but stability. Those who are sincere and who believe in democracy would, if given the choice, prefer a more focused and, perhaps, single workload. The problem is not just about doubling up; it is about making politics work, regardless of whether a person holds one job or two. It is to the shame of some parties in the Assembly that we cannot hold up this institution as an example of making politics work. Few elected representatives, if given the choice, would have abandoned their constituencies in the past four years, given the Assembly’s instability.
We should cast our minds back to the public outcry over whether Members should be given a pay rise, regardless of whether we double up. The public pronouncements on that were not complimentary. On the whole, people said that we did not deserve a penny because nothing happens in this place — they do not say that nothing happens in local councils or at Westminster.
The real issue is not whether we double up, or do one job or three jobs. It is whether we are good at the job to which we have been elected. The people elected us in the first place to uphold and strengthen the Good Friday Agreement. Regardless of whether we have a single job or whether we double up, we are doing that job well. The jury is still out on that matter.
[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McClelland) in the Chair]
Sinn Féin has given the matter considerable thought. We have examined whether holding seats on local councils, in the Assembly and at Westminster provides an adequate voice for the Republican electorate who have given us their mandate, which is to pursue our political agenda on an all-Ireland basis. That mandate will change the political landscape on this island and on our neighbouring island. How we progress our agenda and whether we hold two or three elected posts is worked through our party’s strategy.
Several Sinn Féin councillors, myself included, have resigned our seats on local councils, having worked out with other parties a mechanism for co-option to ensure that the quality of service to the electorate is not diminished or interrupted. We continually examine matters, not least the conflict of interest between local councils and the Assembly. We are also obliged to continually assure our electorate that the transfer of power from Westminster will produce better local democracy. However, that remains debatable.
Although we support the motion in principle, we shall abstain from voting for it, for several reasons. The principle of co-option in local government, specifically on Unionist-dominated councils, has not been firmly established. The Assembly is still sitting on the Unionist San Andreas fault, with the threat of a seismic split just around the corner. However, there is an advantage in giving the decisive power to the people. They had the choice in the first place and have judged that their local elected representatives can represent their interests on councils, in the Assembly, in Dáil Éireann and at Westminster.
Choice should be restricted only where there is good reason. There is no legal or constitutional impediment to candidates offering themselves for positions — in the final analysis it is the people who have the choice. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Seamus Close: I admire the courage of Ms Morrice in batting on a hostile wicket and suffering the wrath of those Members who have served society for many years and whom she attempts to dismiss as double-jobbers. I applaud her courage, and that is where my charity ends.
In declaring an interest, I place on record that I was elected to Lisburn Borough Council, now Lisburn City Council, in 1973. I was re-elected in 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001. I am honoured and privileged to have served the electorate of that august city for 29 consecutive years and now to be in my thirtieth consecutive year of elected position.

A Member: So am I.

Mr Seamus Close: Others in the Chamber can also take a bow on achieving a wonderful record, and I applaud them.
Why has Séamus Close been on Lisburn Borough Council, now Lisburn City Council, for 30 years? A couple of answers spring to mind. People may wish to suggest others, but the two fundamental reasons are that Séamus Close decided to put himself forward to the electorate and that the electorate, for better or worse, decided to elect him. If a mistake was made in 1973, the electorate has had many opportunities to rectify it. It has decided, however, to elect and re-elect Séamus Close. That is democracy in practice.
I maintain that I am a democrat. I believe in, and respect, the voice of the people. It is my prerogative to think that at times they may have got it wrong, but it is their prerogative to decide who will represent them. The people are the final arbiters when choosing their representatives, and I shall defend that right against any attempts to enforce petty, stupid rules for as long as I can.
In case any Members think otherwise, I am not a Member at Westminster. Before people jump to their feet to tell me that I tried often enough, I concede. I tried many times to become a Westminster MP, and I failed on each occasion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Miserably.

Mr Seamus Close: I shall not use that term, because it reflects on several representatives of the Member’s party who polled fewer votes than I did. If my result was miserable, I shall allow the Member to comment on the results of his party Colleagues. However, he did not really mean that. He endorsed my view that, as a democrat, I accept the decision of the people. They decide either to elect me or that they do not want me as their MP, and in future they may decide that they do not want me as their councillor — next year they may decide that they do not want me as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. That is the people’s prerogative. How dare anyone try to deny the people the right to choose? That is an insult to the electorate.
Ms Morrice said that it was not clear what the public should do to elect representatives — "It was not clear to the public" is a direct quote. Was Ms Morrice suggesting that the electorate are stupid? Is she suggesting that when people enter the polling booth they do not know for whom they are voting? The electorate in Northern Ireland are extremely intelligent. Members who have canvassed will appreciate just how tuned-in our electorate are. It is far off the mark to suggest that they are lacking. Post-election, a candidate may think that the electorate were silly because he or she did not get elected, but that is the electorate’s prerogative. If the people of the Lagan Valley constituency and the city of Lisburn wish to have Séamus Close as both a councillor and a Member of the Assembly, so be it. That is a highly intelligent electorate.
There are several impediments to standing for election. A person under 18 cannot stand. If a person is insane, he or she cannot stand — though there are a few in the Chamber who appear to have slipped through. They shall remain nameless. All credit to them — they must not be as mad as they seem. There are others, predominantly outside the Chamber, who would say that all those who put themselves forward for election qualify to be described as insane. The third obstacle to standing is bankruptcy — in financial terms only; it does not refer to bankruptcy of thought or political content or ability. To add to that list of impediments the circumstance of being already elected to another body would be to deny the electorate the opportunity to exercise their intelligence and the right to make a democratic choice.
Like other Members, I want to know what motivated the motion. Why is it on the Order Paper now? It was not on the Order Paper 12 months ago. Is it just coincidence that 12 months ago local government elections and, more importantly, a Westminster election took place in which one of the proposer’s colleagues stood as a candidate for South Belfast? That is particularly pertinent to the motion. Like myself, she was unsuccessful; although I received a few more votes than her. Has the motion been tabled by a johnny-come-lately party — perhaps it should be referred to as a Monica-come-lately or a Jane-come-lately party — that wishes to change the political process because it has failed to gain more than one mandate? I cannot assert that as a fact. I can only question the motives behind the motion.
The motion poses other questions. If Ms McWilliams had been elected last year, would the motion have been tabled? If so, would she resign her seat as a Member of the Assembly, thus denying her constituents her wisdom and her ability to contribute to the House and the Committees?
Alternatively, would she have given the Westminster seat a trial run for a few months before deciding to resign, forcing a by-election at great cost to the electorate? If politicians cannot obtain two mandates, why criticise those who have them, especially as the electorate choose. That is petty politics; it is not good politics and is not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. As has already been mentioned, a large degree of complementarity runs through all elected positions. If someone comes to me with a problem, I cannot decide whether that person has done so in my role as a councillor or as an Assembly Member. There is an overlap. The representative role can often be fulfilled better if one has more than one elected responsibility.
Many politicians in Northern Ireland cut their political teeth in 1973 — that is when they learnt the intricacies of the great profession that is politics, when they learnt how to represent people and when they learnt the basis of service. When I think about those bygone days, I must say that those of us who stood for election to the respective councils in that year did not think about financial rewards. There was no such thing as financial reward. We stood to serve the people. Are we to be dismissed now as "double-jobbers"? That is an insult to those who, during the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s, were the only democratic bulwarks in our society against terrorism and against those who wished to see democracy go down the plughole. I could tell the House of numerous occasions when I was under attack inside and outside the council chamber and in my home because I dared to be a democrat, and because I dared to put my head above the parapet in days when it was fashionable not to be bothered.
Let us look at some other practical experiences. What would have happened if the rule had been in vogue in 1973, and people who had been elected to our newly formed local authorities had been prevented from standing for the proposed power-sharing Executive? Where would the pool of necessary expertise and talent have been? What would have happened if the rule had been carried through to the 1975 Constitutional Convention, or to James Prior’s rolling devolution experiment of 1982-86, of which I was privileged to be a member? Having been elected to the local authority in 1981, was I to say that I could not stand in 1982? As Ms Morrice said, I would have been elected in 1982 and forced to resign one seat. That experiment lasted a few years. It fell because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement — I am not making a political point, merely stating a fact. If that stupid, petty rule had been in vogue in the 1970s, what would have happened, and where would we have been in Northern Ireland if all those who had developed expertise since 1973 in the new local authorities were suddenly without a "job"? Where would democracy have been?
When Members table motions, they should think the matter through and give it some consideration. It does not do any of us any good to hear what I can only refer to as a half-baked idea that denies people democracy.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sure, Mr Close, that, in the interests of democracy, you would not deny other Members their opportunity to speak, so will you draw your remarks to a close?

Mr Seamus Close: I conclude by saying that reference has also been made to the fact that one cannot do two jobs. I can relate only to my roles as a councillor and as an Assembly Member. I defy any Member, or any member of the electorate, to look at my attendance record in any of the Assembly Committees on which I serve, my record on any of the committees on which I serve at Lisburn City Council or my attendance at any of the full council meetings. I will be at one of those meetings, if God spares me, tonight to represent the people. I am in the Chamber now, and I will leave here to attend a Committee in the Assembly. The roles are complementary, and any tinkering with them should be avoided at all costs. Let the people decide.

Mr Donovan McClelland: If Members restrict themselves to seven minutes, it will be possible to include everyone who wishes to speak.

Sir Reg Empey: Although the motion is welcome in the sense that it allows us to discuss the matter, it is a blunt instrument in its current form. As Mr Close said, one cannot be over-prescriptive — people have a choice. We must break the system down into its various components. For example, there are four Ministers serving as councillors. In the long term, that is not sustainable because conflicts of interest may arise, although interests are declared and such conflicts do not arise frequently.
Mr ONeill spoke about the concept of public service and said that local government is in a different category from the European or Westminster Parliaments. There is some substance in that. As Mr Close said, we must remember that, at one time, local government was the only fragment of democratic representation left at local level. It was a very watered-down system. As you know only too well, Mr Deputy Speaker, people kept that alive during very difficult times when there was no glory and there were no resources. It was hard work for often little or no reward, and local government had few powers. However, local government has been improving, and I hope that it will improve further as a result of the review of public administration.
However, we should debate the issue of simultaneous membership of the Westminster Parliament, the European Parliament, the Assembly and, indeed, the Executive. Although I accept Mr Close’s point that people are entitled to their choice, there is a point where it becomes physically impossible to be fully effective in every role. This is a Europe-wide problem and is not confined to the United Kingdom.
Members of the French National Assembly are often mayors in their districts. The President of France used to be the mayor of Paris. He held that position while he was also a member of the French National Assembly. People also hold positions simultaneously in the Assembly and in the Départements that are the units of regional administration in France. The same situation is found across the European community. A great deal of the work of the European Parliament is done in Committees as well as in the monthly meetings in Strasbourg, and it is not possible, physically, to be in Committees here, at Westminster and at the European Parliament, while attending plenary sessions at the same time. It is not physically or humanly possible.
Although I fully accept that our three MEPs have a good record of bringing help to Northern Ireland, how much better might it have been if they had done that full time and concentrated on it exclusively? Similarly, in Westminster, sporadic attendance at Northern Ireland Questions when the cameras are there and at the odd committee, especially a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, is fine — it is a good contribution. Squeezing in a few votes on a motion on which there will be many divisions so that MPs can maintain their voting record is all very well. However, that is only part of the job. There are other parts. Some Members here refuse to sit on Committees, and it is not because they are not available. Such Members do not face any financial consequences. Therefore, before we beat the drum too hard, perhaps we have to get our own House in order.
There needs to be a debate about how a person can realistically occupy three or four significant positions simultaneously and hope to do all the jobs as adequately as he could if he were concentrating on one of them — but that will take time. Mr ONeill’s point is valid, because there is more difference between representation at local government level and the Assembly than there is between representation at Parliament and at the European Parliament. Nevertheless, if, as I hope, local government returns to a more recognisable form, and the jobs become more substantive, then the question will arise again. I accept that the people in Northern Ireland are an informed electorate. They have a choice to make, and they know who and what they are voting for.
I welcome the fact that we are having this discussion and debate. There is an issue about Ministers holding more than one position, and it is something that we will have to address. Part of the reason for people holding more than one position is that the Assembly was perceived as a fledgling institution that had not settled, and many of us might have reconsidered our decision to stand for election last year had the circumstances been different. Moving forward to the position that Mr ONeill has outlined: for those who are not Ministers the local government role and the Assembly role can be compatible, but it is something we will have to look at.
The EU is moving to a point where it will not be possible to be a member of the European Parliament and other elected bodies after 2008-09.

John Taylor: Elections to the European Parliament are a matter for UK legislation; what the European Parliament says is of no consequence.

Sir Reg Empey: The right hon Member is correct. However, there is a tide of opinion among Governments in the EU that may soon lead to it not being possible to have dual mandates. When we have a situation where there are people with three or four mandates and jobs — which we have here — we reach the point of overdoing it. The hon Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Close, defends the electorate’s right to choose, and I accept that. I also understand that the situation has particular temporary exigencies. However, it is useful to have the debate. We will have to return to this subject, and in the long term the game is probably up for those holding three and four jobs. The position is not sustainable. However, local government is a different matter.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Like Séamus Close, I am bewildered at the reasons behind this act of political masochism by Jane Morrice. She appears to be happy to have set herself up in the Assembly with the motion. I suppose she has got the support of Esmond Birnie — whether that is of any comfort to her, I am not so sure. She has not even succeeded in getting the support of the members of IRA/Sinn Féin beside her, who are well known to be in favour of doing the double. For a long time, their members were required to have a night job as well as a day job, and only recently have they allowed conscientious objectors into the ranks of the public representatives of the party.
Of course, this has been a useful exercise for Séamus Close. He has had a wonderful opportunity to electioneer for next May. I notice that he has told the electorate that he has been a representative for 30 years and has been very pleased at the support they have given him. He admired their generosity, knowledge, and wisdom. At least Jane Morrice has given Séamus Close a chance to get some publicity for himself.
Mr Close is right that many people will be amused, amazed or bewildered by the motive behind the motion. The Women’s Coalition is not against double-jobbing. It is not against it in principle. On many occasions, I have heard Monica McWilliams and Jane Morrice champion the cause of the working woman. They ask for crèches, nurseries and facilities to free them from the sink and get them out to work. Therefore they are not against double-jobbing in principle — a woman can be a mother and a housewife, and she should be helped to do another job as well.
As we heard from several people, they are not against double-jobbing personally. The register of Members’ interests makes interesting reading. Ms McWilliams, who is too busy to attend the debate even though her name is on the Order Paper, has registered an interest as an external examiner and as a non-practising professor, though I do not know what that means. Ms Morrice is on the board of Laganside. She said that that does not really matter because it is only for one morning a month. I got the attendance records, and in the past twelve months she has managed to get to only three out of every four meetings. She seems to find no difficulty in having a non-elected position as well as an elected position.
What is the motive behind this? Now and again, the Women’s Coalition comes up with some bizarre ideas. Ms Morrice’s most bizarre idea before this came during the debate on the memorial for the millennium. She proposed that every house, without qualification, and every tree that was over 100 years old — how that could be worked out, I do not know — should have a protection order placed on it. It did not matter what condition it was in, so long as it was over 100 years old. That was how we should remember the millennium.

Mr Danny Kennedy: What about Séamus Heaney’s house?

Mr Sammy Wilson: It was not 100 years old, and it was still falling down. Perhaps this was just another bizarre idea.
We also know that the Women’s Coalition is a party of interferers. It loves civic forums, commissioners, agencies and commissions. If there is a way to interfere in people’s lives, the Women’s Coalition will find it. If it has not yet been discovered, it will be. Perhaps this interfering tendency is behind the motion, or perhaps, as has been suggested, it is not about efficiency; it is all about jealousy. Members of the Women’s Coalition could not get elected to two positions; so, if they cannot have two, nobody else will.
We have had a constructive debate today, but it is up to individuals to decide whether they want to set themselves up for more than one elected position. If they want to be sad, if they want to run from this place to that place, from this person to that person and from this role to that role, that is up to them, and the Assembly should not legislate for it.
It is also up to their parties to decide whether they do the jobs efficiently. Some people can organise themselves better; some find one job enough to hold. It reflects on the party if people get elected and then do not do the job well. The electorate will decide that they do not wish to have that person about the place. The people know whether someone holds more than one elected position. Let them decide if that is the kind of person that they want to represent them.
Let us not accept such an "interfering busybody’s" attitude from a party that has no Member with a double mandate. Despite Ms Morrice’s comments, Members are not hoarding elected positions, and parties with Members who have a double mandate do not lack suitably qualified candidates. Was the Women’s Coalition so bereft of suitably qualified candidates in South Belfast that it had to put forward Monica McWilliams? Could another Women’s Coalition member not run for election? Ms McWilliams was fielded because the party believed that her profile as an Assembly Member gave her a better chance of winning a Westminster seat. They were wrong. Ms Morrice should not come here with sour grapes, because she got it wrong.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I call Ms Morrice to make her winding-up speech.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Deputy Speaker, dare I?
I expected blood to be spilled, and no less. We have had a valuable start to an important debate; it is only the beginning.
I thank Dr Birnie for his support and clarification of the issue. Sir Reg Empey said that Ministers who are councillors could have a conflict of interests and that eventually it would become physically impossible for them to remain fully effective as representatives. That vital point supported my comments about the difficulty of juggling the responsibilities of elected positions, which can involve air travel and accommodation difficulties.
Mr ONeill agreed that MLAs should not be MPs or MEPs. He made the vital point that mandates represent authority and must be recognised. In addition, I thank him for his point about timing. Mr ONeill and Mr Close stated that local councillors provide an important public service. I do not wish to detract from the hugely important service that is provided at local council level. Patricia Wallace is the Women’s Coalition’s councillor in North Down, and we appreciate the work that her position involves. I congratulate Mr Close and others who have served their communities so well for so long; however, times have changed.

Mr Alban Maginness: If MLAs relinquished their council positions, by-elections might be called, even if the major parties agreed. I am sympathetic to Ms Morrice’s argument, but does she not agree that, to facilitate the relinquishment of council positions by MLAs, we need a mechanism whereby vacancies are filled through automatic co-options rather than by-elections?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is a valid point. I commend the former SDLP leader John Hume for relinquishing his seat in the Assembly because he recognised the heavy burden of the role. He passed his mandate to Annie Courtney, enabling her to participate also. The appropriateness of a similar system at local government level to allow for co-option is an important point for debate.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: I will not give way. I have only 10 minutes in which to cover all the points.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deal soon with Mr Weir’s comments that the motion is anti-democratic, hypocritical and wrongly directed.
Several Members made the point that Monica McWilliams stood in South Belfast in the Westminster elections. Some of the comments were quite absurd. There is no question that members of one body must be allowed to stand for election to another. However, if elected, they should give up any other positions they hold at the earliest opportunity. That is our policy, and it is not hypocritical. Elected representatives should not even contemplate taking up several posts at the same time.
The point was made that co-options and alternates are a valuable way of bringing new people in. Several Members mentioned that things were different in the past. I acknowledge that. However, as far as the Northern Ireland Assembly and the new dispensation are concerned, times have changed. We desperately need new blood, new thinking and young and different voices. That is why debates such as this are so valuable.
I thank Sinn Féin for its position on the issue. Fair enough, it is not yet at the stage of fully supporting the motion, but it supports the concept that one elected position is the preferred option. Sinn Féin is at least moving in the right direction. I also recognise the point that Mary Nelis made about the importance of stability.
Mr Weir said that the motion is anti-democratic. We must consider who chooses election candidates. I was interested to hear Mr Close’s remark that he chose to go forward and the electorate voted for him. I was not aware that that is how parties operate. I thought that party members put themselves forward for nomination as a candidate and that the party then selects the candidates. Is that not the case? It is not common practice for the Ulster Unionist Party to select a candidate who already holds another position. Such practice is a nod in the direction of the motion.
Parties choose their candidates. Surely parties should be encouraging new, young blood to join their ranks. I am not trying to interfere, but there is recognition in the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and in parties here — the SDLP and Sinn Féin have nodded in this direction — that it is a physical impossibility to carry out the work of three elected representatives at the same time. Three people should be doing that work.
If one person can do three jobs, why not consider the antithesis of that and have two people job-sharing an elected position? Is that not a novel approach, not unlike our millennium preservation fund mentioned by Mr Sammy Wilson, which could have perhaps saved Séamus Heaney’s house?
Another issue that Mr Sammy Wilson and others might dismiss is the dual currency debate on the euro, yet there is growing support for that. Those ideas are not as wild and crazy as some would have us believe.
We are here to challenge traditional thinking, and to make people think new things. We want to get support from the public: we believe that we have that. We have laid ourselves open to this sort of criticism, but it is worth it in the end.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 8 Noes 40.
Ayes
Billy Armstrong, Esmond Birnie, Tom Hamilton, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, David McClarty, Pat McNamee, Jane Morrice.
Noes
Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Séamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Arthur Doherty, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Alban Maginness, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
The sitting was suspended at 12.24 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Crime Rates

Mr Donovan McClelland: I wish to advise Members of how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two hours by the Business Committee. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. The round of Members who wish to speak will follow that order. When the debate is concluded, I shall put the question on each amendment in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall not put the question on amendment No 2.
If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I beg to move
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the increasing levels of crime and falling crime detection rates in Northern Ireland and condemns the public stance adopted by Sinn Féin to the police in Northern Ireland.
Policing in Northern Ireland is causing grave concern. Political interference in policing — due to the Patten proposals, which stem from the Belfast Agreement, and the damage that those proposals have done to the numerical strength and morale of the Police Service — has contributed directly to an escalation of crime on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Public representatives receive communications on a weekly basis from people expressing their concerns about letting their youngsters go out at the weekend because of the number of attacks on people at places of entertainment. Parts of Belfast and other towns have become notorious for the number of attacks on young people in particular. Parents who thought that the alleged ending of terrorist campaigns made it safe to send their youngsters out without their being blown up are now afraid to send them out in case they get beaten up.
People are concerned about the effects of increasing lawlessness on their property — car theft is rampant, and there is damage to cars and burglary. According to the police, the number of reported incidents of crime in the last year rose by 11·6%. As a result of the decimation, demoralisation and curtailment of the Police Service, detection rates have gone down from 27·5% to 18·8%. The detection rate for car theft and damage to cars has fallen to half of what it was a year ago. That means that of the 16,000 incidents of car theft and damage to vehicles occurring each year, only a small proportion of the people responsible are being identified.
That has undermined confidence in the Police Service in Northern Ireland. It has caused increasing frustration among people who do not have a political agenda. They want to bash the police not because they are anti-police, or because they consider the police to have changed as a result of the Belfast Agreement. They are unhappy about policing because they believe that the level of service that they are entitled to as citizens has been affected. Their property and their families are being affected by the rising crime rate. The police appear to be powerless in the face of that crime rate.
I am sure that other Members will say that that is the case. That is true whether people come from Nationalist or Unionist backgrounds or from working-class or middle-class backgrounds. It does not matter what race they are. People want to live in safety and have their property protected, but that is not happening.
There is general concern, which I am sure will be expressed today. I do not wish to harp on, but this point must be forcefully made. Unfortunately, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is less effective because people voted for political interference in its running. They voted for political correctness instead of police effectiveness. The effects of that can be seen on the ground.
We were told that those sacrifices, hard choices and difficult decisions — words that I have heard from members of the Ulster Unionist Party — were made because policing had to be accepted. We were told that were the Police Service accepted, it would become more effective. Immense sacrifices were made. People who had given years of service to the community in the most difficult circumstances were hurt, damaged and, indeed, besmirched by some of the Patten recommendations that were later accepted in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
What has the effect been? Have all those changes led to an acceptable police force? I do not wish to bore the Assembly with all the comments that have been made, but there are sheaves of statements from IRA/Sinn Féin that use exactly the same language about the "Pattenised" Police Service as they used about the RUC. The police are still called human rights abusers. They are still called a police force within a police force. They are still unacceptable. Sinn Féin representatives still publicly say that they wish the members of the Police Service to be treated in the same way that members of the RUC were treated. There has been no change. Opposing proper policing supports criminality.
Let us make no mistake. IRA/Sinn Féin cannot condemn the police in the terms that it has expressed and yet wring its hands in lament at the criminality that has descended upon its community. Opposing the Police Service means that criminality is supported. Of course, we can understand that people who were and who are criminals will hardly support those who are meant to deal with criminals. Despite sacrifices having been made, and the subsequent effect on the ground, there has not been the acceptance that we were promised — far from it. In fact, even more changes are demanded.
One of the proposed amendments to this motion calls on those who support criminals to get on board with the Police Service. I do not wish to turn this debate into a call for Sinn Féin to get on board policing in Northern Ireland. The inherent criminal tendencies in that section of the body politic should have no part in policing. Although the poison of Sinn Féin may have affected this institution, I am glad that the Policing Board can get on with its work because that poison has not been injected into its veins.
The Government are going to make the mistake of making further concessions to those who continue to churn out their hatred of the police. What further concessions can be made to involve them in policing? Should terrorists be involved, just to bring Sinn Féin on board? That would be wrong for several reasons. My party joined the Policing Board, albeit with reservations because of the probable effect of Patten’s weakening of the police. The SDLP joined on terms which were acceptable at the time. To change those terms to facilitate the intransigent supporters of criminals would be a travesty and a betrayal of those who joined on the original terms.
For the Government to pander any further to IRA/ Sinn Féin would be a grave mistake. First, it would undermine those who have joined the Policing Board. Secondly, more concessions will only weaken the police and have a grave effect on their morale, which is already at rock bottom.
This motion is timely, because of the concern at the reduction in the Police Service’s effectiveness as a result of the Patten reforms and the subsequent Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. As the Government head towards a review of policing and the 2000 Act, the Assembly must issue a warning. I hope that the voices of the SDLP Members will be raised in public, as they have been in private, to warn the Government that concessions have weakened a vital service in society and that no more can be made.

Mr Alex Maskey: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2 delete all after "detection rates in Northern Ireland" and insert
"and believes it is essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with Human Rights norms."
Sammy Wilson began, at least, to mention that part of the motion that deals with the increasing levels of crime and the falling detection rates. He went on to make several political assumptions and observations. I share many of his concerns about the levels of some crimes, particularly those which have, unfortunately, been highlighted again. The elderly are vulnerable members of the community who continue to fall prey to criminals. Many of them have been brutally attacked in their homes, yet no one has been arrested, tried or convicted for those crimes.
The problem with policing here is not the fault of Sinn Féin. I remind Members that Sinn Féin was involved in the negotiations for the Good Friday Agreement, which included a section on policing. Those involved in the negotiations and those who signed up to the new beginning for policing acknowledged that there was a fundamental problem with policing in the Six Counties.
The motion condemns the public stance of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin’s position and public stance is clear. It believes that Peter Mandelson’s Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 usurped the new beginning that was promised in the Good Friday Agreement. However, critically, Sinn Féin will continue to press the British Government to undo the damage of the 2000 Act and to fully legislate to provide for an effective and accountable police service.
The motion is bogus. It aims to make Sinn Féin the scapegoat for the absence of an effective police service. It is unclear whether the proposer blames Sinn Féin or the Ulster Unionist Party — perhaps he is trying to get at both. Sinn Féin, therefore, will not support the motion.
Sinn Féin will not support the second proposed amendment, because it too is also fundamentally flawed. The 2000 Act has undermined our ability to create an effective and accountable police service, although that aspiration was endorsed by the electorate last year when the SDLP and Sinn Féin published an analysis of policing that had a significant bearing on the outcome of the election. Sinn Féin was returned as the largest Nationalist party, showing that its overall position, including its views on policing, was endorsed by the electorate.
As is the SDLP’s right, its proposed amendment asks all parties to endorse its party position. However, as the SDLP did not join the Policing Board until after the elections last year, it appears that it did not have the courage to inform the electorate of its position then, which would suggest a lack of confidence in the Nationalist community’s support for the policing arrangements set out in the 2000 Act.
Sinn Féin’s amendment, standing in my name and that of John Kelly, is designed to bring the debate back to the core issue, namely the fulfilment of the demands of the Good Friday Agreement. I pledge to all communities that Sinn Féin will tirelessly work to establish the police service that it negotiated for in the Good Friday Agreement. Sammy Wilson may not be pleased to hear this, but I look forward to the successful outcome of those negotiations, because it will enable Sinn Féin to participate in the establishment of the service that it endorsed on Good Friday 1998 but has since been denied. I look forward to Sinn Féin’s role in overseeing the new police service.
Regrettably, my community is all too aware of criminal activity. Tomorrow in west Belfast we will lay to rest Kieran Conlon, another victim of so-called car crime. The long-term legacy of bad policing in my constituency contributed to his death, and I extend my sympathy to Mr Conlon’s family. I assure them that his death is not a party political issue in the Chamber today. Proper policing structures are an imperative of the Good Friday Agreement, to which all parties signed up.
Sinn Féin’s view, and the view of many others, is that we have not yet reached the new beginning, but Sinn Féin will continue to strive to do so. I assure all those who have been recently bereaved, hurt by plastic bullets or denied justice, that Sinn Féin will work to establish a new, effective and impartial police service that all in the community can embrace and find beneficial.

Mr Alex Attwood: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2 delete all after "detection rates in Northern Ireland" and insert
"and calls on all parties to participate in the new policing structures and arrangements which provide the basis for a police service that ‘is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with Human Rights norms.’ "
I wish Sammy Wilson and Joe Byrne, and Fred Cobain of the Ulster Unionist Party, well for this time tomorrow when they will sit on the interview panel for the new Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. At least they are not shirking their responsibility to make real the new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.

Mr Alex Maskey: In its discussion tomorrow, will the Policing Board explain to the people of Short Strand how they ended up on the receiving end of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is supposed to be the new police service?

Mr Alex Attwood: I shall answer that in the details of what I will say.
The Assembly should note that the new Chief Constable will be appointed tomorrow. The post is our most significant public appointment: none has greater consequences. People who assume the responsibility for making such an appointment must be acknowledged and applauded. They are at least trying to sign up to the Good Friday Agreement and the changes suggested in the Patten Report, even if some of them do not like those recommendations and may indeed deny them. Others are not prepared to acknowledge their policing responsibilities, although they are fulfilling every other aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.
I should like to respond to some of Sammy Wilson’s points. The SDLP accepts that not everything in policing is right; only a fool would claim otherwise. However, it is improper and unfair to say that many things are wrong; and it is particularly unfair and wrong to blame everything on the Patten Report. Our policing and political problems pre-date the Patten Commission and are not a consequence of its report. The Nationalist community was unable to support the RUC and to join it in representative numbers, and too often that force failed to account legally and publicly for its actions. That failure, and the RUC’s wider associations, caused division and dispute in our society over policing — and all of that pre-dates the Patten Report. To blame Chris Patten and the other commissioners for what is now wrong in policing ignores all our history, all the evidence and many of the facts.

Mr Robert McCartney: Although it is arguable that those factors pre-dated the Patten Commission, that body was supposed to cure them. In fact, the factors have been exacerbated since the Patten Report, and that is why this debate was proposed.

Mr Alex Attwood: I acknowledge that argument, and, as I said, there are still difficulties in policing. It will take a long process and much heavy lifting to get it right.
If the present policing system is being assessed, then why not acknowledge that there have been several recruitment exercises and that 50% of those joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) now come from a Catholic background. The latest evidence suggests that people from that background come from every constituency in the North and from all types of Catholic backgrounds. That was not the case when the old RUC existed, but is true in the days of the PSNI.
If people are saying that there are still problems with policing, they should also acknowledge that a recent household survey confirmed that 75% of the Protestant community have confidence in the work of the Police Ombudsman, who is an essential partner in the new beginning for policing. Eighty-one per cent of the Catholic community have confidence in her work. So much for those who say that the Police Ombudsman is a toothless tiger. In her statement on the Omagh bombing, whether we like it or not, Nuala O’Loan demonstrated her real teeth, her real power and her real ability to affect policing change in the North.
If Bob McCartney is right to say that policing is worse than when the RUC existed, why does the Nationalist community test policing in some places; why does it support it in others; and why does it join the PSNI in yet others? Why do we not acknowledge all that is changing and all that is positive, rather than saying that policing is worse now than in the past? That is Sinn Féin’s argument, because even if the glass were full, it would claim that it was half-empty. Those who believe in the new beginning for policing, or who at least participate in it, should not indulge Sinn Fein’s attitude that regardless of what is right, some things will always be wrong.
Sammy Wilson said that crime figures show that there is more crime and less detection. I do not deny that rates of crime and detection must be addressed. However, as Sammy Wilson and other Policing Board members know, the acting Chief Constable said on the record that the new system for recording crime had affected the results so that more crime was recorded, inevitably creating a higher recorded rate. Crime facts and figures must be discussed frankly and fully; we should not be selective.
Sammy Wilson said that the new crime figures are a result of the decimation and demoralisation of the police. Even if there are occasional and short-term losses, there will be many longer-term gains. When we have a representative, accountable, civilian Police Service that conforms to human rights standards, we will have made a breakthrough in the community’s culture and processes so that everyone will have confidence in the police.
Alex Maskey asserted that we should not make policing a party political issue. He will know what I am about to say, because I have said it before: who made policing a party political issue by referring to Policing Board members as "collaborators"? Sinn Féin in Derry City Council referred to SDLP members and supporters of the Police Service as "collaborators". Is that not party politics? Who referred to all the Policing Board members as "dummies"? Martin McGuinness. Is that not party politics? Who said that no Nationalist or Republican would join or support the Police Service? Who had the high-handedness and arrogance to make those claims? Was that not party politics from Gerry "there but for the grace of God go I" Adams? Such remarks show who is playing party politics and preying on people’s worst fears.

Mr Patrick Roche: Party politics are embedded in every policing document that the SDLP has ever produced. For example, at the Brehon Law Society conference a few years ago in the United States, the party’s then deputy leader said that the RUC was upholding the law of the jungle in Northern Ireland, implying that the RUC perpetrates terrorism, rather than protects citizens from it. If that is not a disgusting politicisation of policing, I am open to persuasion.

Mr Alex Attwood: Recently, the SDLP has been getting every aspect of policing policy and practice right — that is the most compelling argument for its amendment. If the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board, Ronnie Flanagan would still be the Chief Constable, and Nuala O’Loan’s report on Omagh would have been "decimated", to borrow a word.
Policing power would not have been turned on its head, as it was in the board’s response to Omagh, if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board. There would not have been a code of ethics, which the human rights community has acknowledged as being positive and progressive, if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board. There would not be a multidimensional strategy to put into practice Patten’s imperative to integrate Special Branch into the wider Police Service if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board.
Through the scientific research programme commissioned by Patten, plastic bullets may be banned. Sinn Féin has stated that that threshold is acceptable, and that if it were implemented in full, it would join the Policing Board. This gives an opportunity to introduce other methods of riot control that conform with human rights standards, are consistent with minimum force requirements and rightly protect the police and the public from the riots that are so often seen on the streets of Belfast and elsewhere. I commend this amendment to the House.

Sir John Gorman: As Members will know, I am a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as was my father before me. My youngest son is a reserve constable. It is appropriate that I should say something on the motion, and I hope that what I say will be of some value.
Contrary to some fears, the level of recorded crime is fairly static, and the year-on-year increase over the past 12 months is almost nil. When I was chief executive of the Housing Executive I was conscious of the fraudulent use of tax certificates. Therefore I was heartened to read last week that the PSNI team, which has spent many months investigating this issue, has now traced over 100 people who are involved in this deplorable crime in Northern Ireland. These people extracted more than £10 million from taxpayers. However, the case is sub judice, so I will say no more about it, but I am certain that there will be prosecutions.
More than 70% of crime in the Province is drugs related. The use of drugs has an enormous impact on young people. However, the number of violent crimes, while recently on the decrease, is shocking compared with the levels we suffered when I was in the RUC. Leaving aside terrorist killings, murder is now almost a weekly occurrence in Northern Ireland. Thirty years ago it was so rare that the names of the victims were imprinted on the public mind.
Undoubtedly, the fear of crime is great, but it is disproportionate to the real risk. Public concern is focused on the PSNI’s woeful 27% clearance rate. I note the point that has just been made from the SDLP Benches, but the rate is still very low. The clearance rates for burglary, criminal damage and robbery are especially worrying at less than 15%. The number of investigations into terrorist killings that lead to prosecution is also extremely low, although, as much as anything else, that probably reflects failures in our criminal justice system, gaps in the legislation and communities’ fears of reporting paramilitaries.
I can support the motion. It is succinct and lays the blame where it should be laid. Sinn Féin’s attitude to the PSNI is as deplorable as its attitude to the Omagh investigation and nearly as bad as its mealy-mouthed attitude to the gardaí. I am glad that nearly 95% of voters in the Republic saw through Sinn Féin’s attitude to the gardaí.
Sinn Féin deliberately adopts an "impossibilist" position. Its vision of a police force or police service bears no relation to any police force in the world. It seems to think that policing should be a branch of the Department of Health and Social Services. However, anyone with any experience knows that a police force is a necessary evil that must strike a balance between coercion and accountability. Sinn Féin forgot to add certain words to its amendment; I point that out as an important factor in the decision that it may make. It should have added six important words: "Get rid of the Special Branch".
In principle, there is nothing wrong with the SDLP’s amendment. We should all be able to support the vision of a police service contained in the Belfast Agreement. Those of us on this side of the House, especially perhaps, believe that the RUC was, and is, a fine force and one that did its best to fulfil the aims of the agreement in extremely difficult circumstances.
The problem with the SDLP’s amendment is that it seeks to commit a deliberate evasion. It fails to name the guilty party in the Chamber. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party, while sharing the SDLP’s vision of a first-class police force, will abstain on the SDLP’s amendment. I see no reason why the SDLP cannot support the motion today, and I look forward to hearing some further explanation as to why it will not.

Mr Norman Boyd: I support the motion. The decent law-abiding people of Northern Ireland have had to endure a huge increase in crime as a direct consequence of the Belfast Agreement. This is hardly surprising, given that the Belfast Agreement is a corruption of democracy and the rule of law.
The Belfast Agreement has destroyed the Royal Ulster Constabulary and reduced policing resources significantly. At the same time, illegal terrorist organisations have been able to strengthen their structures and carry out their criminal activities due to the early release of hundreds of their members, many of whom committed the most heinous crimes.
Thirty-one terrorists freed under the Belfast Agreement have been returned to prison for their criminal activity. One such individual who had been released early and has since been returned to prison is a double murderer who was recently convicted of a sex attack in Belfast.
Released prisoners have been seen on the streets of Belfast during recent rioting. One such individual observed by members of the security forces at recent riots in Ardoyne is the Republican Sean Kelly, who murdered nine innocent Protestants on the Shankill Road. That is clearly a breach of his early release licence. The majority of the 31 prisoners who have been returned to jail have been accused of criminal offences such as theft and assault.
It is nauseating to hear IRA/Sinn Féin express concerns about human rights. No group continues to abuse human rights more than IRA/Sinn Féin. IRA/Sinn Féin have murdered over 300 police officers and injured many thousands more during the past 30 years. Everyone, except the naive and gullible, knows that IRA/Sinn Féin are not committed to the principles of exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
The Provisional IRA, which is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin, continues to be fully armed and has enough explosives and ammunition to murder everyone in Northern Ireland. There has been no decommissioning of illegal weapons and no disbandment of the Provisional IRA. All we have are meaningless statements. In fact, there is clear evidence that the IRA is heavily involved in gunrunning.
The Provisional IRA continues to murder, bomb, gather intelligence, deal in illegal drugs and carry out beatings and shootings, including attacks on children. The IRA is heavily involved in the abuse of social security payments, illegal livestock trade, evasion of tax and VAT, tobacco and alcohol smuggling and duty evasion, illegal fuel, insurance and compensation fraud, money laundering, cheque and credit card fraud, electoral fraud, motor vehicle licensing fraud, extortion, counterfeit goods, vehicle theft, armed robbery, hijacking and many other criminal activities.
What are the human rights of the innocent victims of such crimes? Have the Government cracked down hard on illegal organisations? Not at all: the opposite has happened. A self-confessed leader of the Provisional IRA, Martin McGuinness, boasts of his criminal activity, yet, disgustingly, he was made Minister of Education by the pro-agreement Members. What sort of example is that to young people? Is it any wonder that many young people turn to crime when they see the likes of Martin McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland?
It is little wonder that Sinn Féin is opposed to the rule of law when the Provisional IRA has such a huge criminal empire. The IRA murders Catholics who join the police — what about their human rights?
It is regrettable that there has been a huge increase in crime in Unionist areas as policing resources have been decimated by the implementation of the Patten report. We have lost hundreds of experienced professional and long-serving officers as a result of political expediency, and their expertise is gone forever.
At 11pm a week ago last Saturday, I contacted Newtownabbey police station on behalf of a constituent. Newtownabbey has a major police station serving a population of approximately 81,000. However, no one above the rank of constable was in the station. Neighbourhood beat officers have been moved to other duties and no longer walk the beat.
The reduction of policing resources throughout Northern Ireland has resulted in a large increase in crime and a lack of resources for bringing the guilty to justice. There is a daily catalogue of crime, including armed robberies, burglaries, assaults, attacks on the elderly, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.
A few months ago in my street in Newtownabbey, an elderly lady was robbed on her way to church on Sunday morning. Throughout Northern Ireland pensioners are being robbed in their homes. The brutal murder of Joshua McClenaghan in south Antrim in March this year is a graphic illustration of the depravity of the people carrying out these crimes.
Businesses and retail outlets are robbed regularly, leaving staff, including young people, traumatised for a long time. Then many shop owners have to endure intimidation, threats, assaults and demands for payment of so-called protection money from Republican and so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations. Decent law-abiding people are fed up with such illegal activity.
In Newtownabbey alone, Translink has suffered damages of £100,000 as a result of attacks on its vehicles in the past 12 months. Every weekend, new bus shelters are smashed in a litany of vandalism. Seven bus shelters were smashed in close proximity in one night.
The Government’s response to the crime wave is to consider the closure of around 17 police stations and the removal of a permanent policing presence from many areas. Members are irresponsible when they tell people not to provide information to the police about the Omagh bomb and other crimes.
Illegal terrorist organisations set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. They have murdered drug dealers and other criminals — some within their own organisations — but the Government bury their head in the sand and describe such activity as "housekeeping".
The courts must also get tough with criminals. The punishment should fit the crime and be a deterrent to others. I publicly condemn the comments of the vice-chairman of the Policing Board, Denis Bradley, for stating that ex-terrorists should be allowed to join the police. That is a corruption of democracy and the rule of law. Equally corrupt is the prospect of IRA/Sinn Féin taking seats on the Policing Board and controlling the forces of law and order.
The "Defend the RUC" pledge and declaration states:
"We repudiate a structure for policing that offers a role to the representatives of paramilitary organisations."
Regrettably, such structures exist, and the ultimate corruption of the integrity of the rule of law will occur when IRA/Sinn Féin takes up positions in such structures in the near future after it gains more concessions from a weak Government.

Mr Robert McCartney: I have high personal regard for Sir John Gorman and the service that he, as a former member of the RUC, and his family have rendered to the community. However, his assertion that crime is static does not hold up. The figures contained in the Chief Constable’s report to the board, which was made available at the beginning of the month, clearly demonstrate that that is not the case. As Sammy Wilson pointed out, the overall detection rate when compared with last year dropped from 27·5% to 18·8%. The rate has decreased substantially in all but one area, in which there was a marginal improvement of 0·2%.
There is no doubt that police in any jurisdiction need two things to sustain their success: first, they must have adequate resources and numbers; secondly, they must have good morale and must believe that their service is worthwhile and that they have the respect of the people on whose behalf they put their health, lives and bodies at risk. In both respects, the RUC suffered because of the Patten Commission. Now, as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, its numbers have been significantly reduced and the morale of those who serve in it has been seriously damaged.
For example, within the past six months, I had a meeting with the senior officer for the north Down area. Notionally, he should have between 280 and 290 constables to cover the area. Of that number, 40 took redundancy under the Patten Report and have not been replaced and 55 are on special static duty and look after notables and those who, despite the ceasefire, apparently require 24-hour guard. A further 60 are on long-term sick leave — that is they have been sick for more than 12 months. That figure does not include those who have taken significant sick leave within that period. The figures total 155, which means that under 50% of the allotted staff are available for police duties.
A consequence of that is that Holywood, a quiet town with good community relations, has been turned into Tombstone or Abilene. There have been three bank robberies. During a robbery of the Ulster Bank in Church Road, the getaway car was blocked in by a car that had been double-parked. One can walk comfortably from the police station to the site of the robbery in less than five minutes, but it took the police so long to arrive that the robbers managed to extricate themselves and the getaway car and make good their escape. That is only one example of under-policing as a result of Patten.
We have heard much factual detail about the difficulties and hardships suffered by people as a result of the rising tide of criminality. I want to address some of the fundamental principles behind that tide. Fergus Finlay — a one-time special political adviser to Dick Spring; no longer of pious and immortal memory in the political scene — said at the time of the negotiations that without Sinn Féin any agreement would not be worth a penny candle. The day after the joint Downing Street declaration was issued, in an address to the nation, John Major said that the only people who could give peace were the armed men of violence.
The result of that for the British Government, as far as the Belfast Agreement was concerned, was not a political settlement, but conflict resolution between the British state and armed and violent Republicanism. The price that the British Government paid was political and policing institutions that were essentially transitional in nature. Sinn Féin was promised that it would be given what it wanted as long as it did not bomb the mainland and ceased its activities so that the business and commercial communities could be bribed with the prospect of enriching themselves.
The result is that since 1998 Nationalist and Loyalist communities in public housing areas, whether Poleglass or Ballybeen or Kilcooley, have been subjected to the rule of terrorists, paramilitaries and criminals who are responsible for a great percentage of rising crime.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Some months ago there was a debate in this Chamber that was not about policing: it was about the implementation of agreements said to have been reached at Weston Park. Mark Durkan, the Deputy First Minister, told the House that two senior officials in the British negotiating party told him that the reason that his proposals were not being implemented and that Sinn Féin’s might be was because he had no guns. The issue of policing is directly connected to the possession of arms and the arsenal of terror.
The two main objectives of a paramilitary terrorist organisation such as Sinn Féin/IRA have been, first, to keep possession of the means of terrorising those whom it wishes to bend to its objectives and, secondly, the destruction of any force that might be an effective counter-terrorist organisation. Those are the twin aims of Sinn Féin/IRA. It wishes to retain the arsenal with which to threaten British Administrations so that they will meet its demands and to destroy whatever police force there is.
Those who take time to read the opening paragraphs of the Patten Report will find that, curiously, Mr Patten confirmed that the broad acceptance rates of the RUC were higher throughout the entire community than those of any continental police force. That is amazing when one recalls that that force, which had 301 dead, 8,000 seriously injured and a multitude of others scarred mentally and physically, was awarded the George Cross. That was rather like being awarded the Victoria Cross on the first day of the battle of the Somme and then being shot on the sixth day for cowardice. That is what happened. The George Cross was the pay-off for destroying the record and service of a proud force.
All of that might have been remotely justified if what had been put in its place was a more effective, efficient and acceptable police force that was reducing crime. Although one could argue that many of the factors giving rise to crime pre-dated Patten, as I said in my question to Mr Attwood, Patten was supposed to be the great cure-all.
Patten was supposed to be the herald of the reforms that would see an effective, acceptable police force that would be capable of reducing crime. Instead, we have a police force that is undermanned, undernourished, with a much reduced morale, faced with a rising tide of crime not a falling tide. What does the SDLP offer? It offers the old principle of "live, horse, and you will get grass". It says that some time in the future all those marvellous promises and reforms will result in fewer elderly pensioners being beaten up in their homes, fewer young people being killed by joyriders on the roads, fewer violent robberies, fewer murders and fewer sex crimes. We shall see — but it is quite plain that that is not the case.
For many years, the SDLP refused to endorse the RUC despite the losses that the police were suffering, despite the RUC’s record in bringing to justice a far higher percentage of so-called Loyalist terrorists and criminals than Republican, and despite the fact that some of its members had also suffered death and injury at the hands of the Loyalist organisations.
All crime is not attributable to Sinn Féin or Republicans. A very significant amount of crime is attributable to the activities of Loyalist paramilitaries, some of whom are represented or fronted in this House by the PUP. We could talk about the PUP/UVF in the same way that we talk about Sinn Féin/IRA. The terminology would be equally appropriate, but the principles for which I contend, and which I hope the motion will inspire, are equally applicable to both. The only reason that there is emphasis on Sinn Féin is that it has far greater political representation; it has far greater political clout, and it has been promised a great deal. It is right that we should send a message from the Assembly that Sinn Féin is not only not welcome here while it is inextricably linked to armed terrorists, but that it has no place in a democracy in participation either on the Policing Board or on the local police boards.
I believe in redemption. I believe that those who give up their criminal activity, who dissociate themselves entirely from terror, who evidence it by their works as well as their words, should be accepted into the company of democrats. I have no truck with Members of Sinn Féin in this House or with Loyalist paramilitaries, but the day that they give firm evidence that they are no longer committed, in any way, to criminality and terror, I shall welcome them — even though I am opposed, in principle, to this form of devolution. However, until then, they must be treated like the pariahs they are. I encourage all Members to support the motion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I open my comments by touching on the two amendments. The Sinn Féin amendment is unsurprising in its "Gerry in Wonderland" predictability. It is a Republican wish list of what they want for policing, but it does not even call on people to support the police. If Members read it carefully, there is no call to support, or join, the police.
This comes from a party that is in Government, which is absolutely ridiculous, and yet will not put its name to a motion that calls for support for the police. If we think for one moment of the import of that decision, people will realise the terrible state of affairs that we have come to in this country. There is no such thing as neutrality on the issue of law and order. There is no neutral gear, because if you do not support the police, you support crime and those who are engaged in it.
We see the supporters of crime and their activity daily. For the past four months, business in my Colleague Mr Campbell’s council chamber in Londonderry has consistently been disrupted by Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin activists. They prevent council business from taking place because they are opposed to policing in Northern Ireland.
The second proposed amendment — the SDLP amendment — is slightly better in that it calls on parties to participate in policing, and that is a welcome change from previous SDLP policy. It has been stated, during this debate and previously, that we welcome the fact that the SDLP has come to a position of political maturity where it does support the police, and it should be congratulated for that.
However, I have to comment on some of the points that Alex Attwood, the Member for West Belfast, made in his criticisms of Sinn Féin. He said that the geographical distribution of people joining the police dismisses the Sinn Féin argument. I wish that the Nationalist community were more supportive of the police than Mr Attwood hopes they are. The recruitment figures in Newry, Armagh and west Belfast are not as hopeful as they might have been. Alex Attwood and his Colleagues must show leadership in those areas to encourage people to support the police. Mr Attwood referred to Nuala O’Loan’s report. The Policing Board did not support that report; it set it aside, and he should be honest about that. If he wants to admit that he let her down, so be it, but he set the report aside. In those circumstances he ought to be careful when he addresses the issue of policing.
The two proposed amendments avoid the issue, and Sir John Gorman put his finger on it when addressing that matter. I am disappointed by the SDLP’s woolliness and by its failure to focus on placing the blame. I am also disappointed that, together, the two amendments are peddling a sectarian line that is poorly conceived in human rights jargon. It is about an anti-police line — anti-Special Branch and anti-Protestant-members-of-the-Police-Service, if they had the guts to say so — and it comes from parties that have been on record as referring to the police as "pigs" outside Policing Board meetings. That is the anti-police stance taken by certain Members. If they could get away with it, they would say it in the amendments to my Colleague Mr Sammy Wilson’s motion.
In supporting the motion, I draw the House’s attention to three incontrovertible facts. First, there is increasing crime. Of that there is no doubt. Statistics for 2001-02 show that there were 123,269 crimes in Northern Ireland, and in the previous year there were 110,421. That is a substantial increase that we cannot get away from. In his most recent report, in May 2002, the acting Chief Constable said that the recorded crime figures for the period would undoubtedly be revised upwards. The trend is not static; it is increasing.
Secondly, detection rates are falling. Two years ago almost 30% of crime was detected, and last year it was only 18%. In April 2002 the Assistant Chief Constable for Greater Belfast, Mr Alan McQuillan, said in the ‘News Letter’ that police detection rates are plummeting in Northern Ireland. He went on to say that while the level of service is dropping, detection rates are plummeting. Put those two facts together and one can see why that is. When there is a deficit of almost 2,000 police officers in Northern Ireland, it is no wonder that detection rates have dropped considerably. The House must realise that there is a crisis in policing that is aided and abetted by terrorists being at the heart of Government. It would be a dereliction of the Assembly’s responsibilities if it failed to acknowledge that that crisis exists.
I will quote from crime statistics given to members of the Policing Board this month, because they knock on the head any notion, such as the view of Mr Attwood, that the Assembly should look at those figures frankly and fully. If the Assembly looks at those figures frankly and fully, it will see that crime detection figures are down in every sector. There were 22,000 offences against the person this year. Only 44·6% of those crimes were detected. Last year, 60% were detected. The detection rate for sexual offences is down by 20%. Burglary has become a major problem across the Province — there were 15,000 last year. The detection rate for burglaries has plummeted from 14% last year to 9% this year. There were 37,000 thefts recorded this year, and the detection rate has dropped from 20% to 12%.
I could continue through every category. The ability of the police to detect crime has dropped. I am sure that there are Members of the House, such as the 18 who sit under the Gallery opposite, who applaud the fact that the police can no longer detect crime. That is a major success for Sinn Féin, which undermines policing here by encouraging people to support a shocking and shameful process that has reduced the Police Service by 2,000 members in the past year.
I am also concerned that the Northern Ireland Office has tried to gloss over the major crime problem here. It recently published its organised crime task force’s report. When the Police Service gets it right, it should be applauded, but it is getting it right in fewer cases now than ever before. That is a sad reflection on its ability to do the job that people expect of it and want it to do. The reason it is not able to do its job is that it does not have enough officers. I must emphasise for the record that the Police Service should be congratulated when it gets it right, because it is an excellent public service, and the sooner it is given the resources, manpower and capability to take on and tackle criminals, the better. One of the major reasons why there is so much crime is that not only is manpower down, but resources are also down. The police are currently operating on an operational deficit of around £15 million. It is up to the NIO to fill the pot.
The third factor in the debate is that the Assembly must condemn Sinn Féin/IRA for the stance it has taken. I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party, the United Kingdom Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Unionist Party are supporting the motion. The Assembly must lay the blame where is should be laid. The attitudes of Sinn Féin Members to the police are clear from the records of the House.
Mr Molloy says that if Sinn Féin does not get what it wants, it will go back to what it does best. In the past 30 years, what Sinn Féin/IRA has done best, in its eyes, is murder and mayhem, bombing and killing. The leader of the Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin, Mr Gerry Adams, has said that he will treat the police in the same way that the Catholic community treated the RUC. What a terrible indictment by the leader of a party that is in government. Will Sinn Féin treat the police as it has done for the past 30 years, by attacking, shooting and killing them?
The Chief Constable’s crime statistics show that there have been 113 attacks, principally organised by Republicans, on individual police patrols in the past year. Mr Adams’s comment, when considered in the light of the increased attacks on police officers, highlights the bankruptcy of our political movement, particularly when people attempt to justify the election of that organisation to the Government of Northern Ireland.
Sinn Féin hands out medals of support to the IRA scum who killed and bombed police officers in this community. It is little wonder that the crime crisis is worsening. The organisation dares to be in government while refusing to support the police. Those attitudes ought not to be compatible, and it is a shame that some believe that they are. Sir John Gorman said that the electorate in the Republic saw through Sinn Féin; I only wish that certain people in this House would see through them. The sooner they do so, the more quickly we will be able to deal with crime.
It is often implied in debates on this subject that, although crime is still committed, it is less serious than it has ever been, and we no longer face terror crime. However, the IRA remains armed and capable — as do Loyalist paramilitaries — of continuing the job that it did before. The Chief Constable’s most recent report shows that munitions finds were higher when the Government were not pressing for decommissioning than they are now. The police have been unable to recover as many munitions during this period of peace as they did while we were told that a war was going on.
In the past year, 939 organised terrorist offences, designed to overthrow democracy and to ruin this state, were recorded. Failure to support the motion will be applauded by criminals throughout Northern Ireland, because they will see that some people in one section of the community are prepared to turn a blind eye to their criminality in the name of some political shibboleth. We must smash that shibboleth, because if we fail to do so, we will fail to send out a message that this House is opposed to crime and its causes. I support the motion.

Mr Joe Byrne: Policing is of major and relevant concern to the Assembly, especially given that 10 Members sit on the Policing Board; albeit only three of the four parties so entitled have taken up their seats. Some still shirk their public responsibility regarding policing; the SDLP does not. Patten recommended strongly that community-centred policing should be a major priority in developing and promoting the new policing policy agenda.
Policing is a core public service that involves everyone in Northern Ireland. It has always been a difficult and controversial issue, particularly because of the major political difficulties regarding the operation of government structures in the past. Policing can only be effective when all sections of the community are involved in, and can identify and feel comfortable with, all structures of government, including a regional police service.
Although the SDLP recognises that past, it also acknowledges that there have been changes. The Good Friday Agreement provided a template for policing. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) came into being in April 2002, and already there have been new recruits. Two batches of probationary officers are now in the mainstream service. Those young men and women chose a Police Service career. They must be respected and supported in that work.
Every Member should stand up for the fundamental human right to choose a career or job without fear or intimidation. Young Nationalists who choose a career in policing must be allowed to realise their ambition and be respected in the exercise of that freedom. There must be no implied criticism of their wish to be police officers and no prevarication or threat to its achievement. Policing is a noble career for those who choose it.
Without exception, the human rights of young people who choose a career in policing entitle them to respect. Sinn Féin has no right to victimise Nationalists or Catholics who join the PSNI. The last phrase of the amendments put forward by Sinn Féin and by the SDLP is "which conforms with Human Rights norms." Let us practise what we preach.
As I said earlier, policing has always been a vexed and difficult issue. Historically, political structures did not enjoy widespread support or allegiance. Consequently, policing was a casualty from the outset. The last 30 years of conflict emphasised that. The Good Friday Agreement, however, and the constituent part which relates to policing, offers a clear way forward. The policing problem was tackled by providing for the establishment of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Patten issued a comprehensive report and a route map for better policing in Northern Ireland. Patten’s parameters and recommendations are the primary agenda for change, leading to the ultimate objective of an impartial, professional and widely accepted Police Service that delivers effective policing to communities across the region.
I accept that there is a rise in ODC. That term means "ordinary, decent crime" and I do not like it. Our communities experience difficulties and want more effective and efficient community-based policing to tackle them and to treat all sections equally. The new policing structures offer the best opportunity and potential to realise that objective. However, it requires positive commitment and work from all of us to achieve it.
Policing is a major and challenging issue in every part of the western world. It was a Victorian concept and it was hierarchical. Like everything else, however, it must evolve and change. Modern societies require greater involvement of communities in the policing system. For that reason, the SDLP believes in the merits of district policing partnerships, which afford an opportunity to bring police closer to communities. I am convinced that communities — Nationalist and Unionist — want such partnerships to realise effective community policing.
The SDLP’s amendment is comprehensive and reflects the spirit of the community, which yearns for effective policing.

Mr James Leslie: The motion does not have any bearing on my ministerial responsibilities. My remarks, therefore, are made as a private Member.
Like my Colleague, Sir John Gorman, I have no difficulty in supporting the motion. I suspect that crime figures are similar to unemployment figures. From time to time, the measure is changed and the numbers appear to alter, but whether they have increased, stayed the same, or been re-based, the level of crime is unconscionably high. That should be of great concern to the Assembly. Crime detection levels are also unsatisfactorily low.
The figures for Northern Ireland must be considered in the context of crime figures in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Rising crime rates are a serious and widespread problem, in which drugs play a considerable part. Nonetheless, the scale of the problem is of great concern to me and to society. It will require a determined effort from political parties, civil society, the police force and the judiciary to get to grips with the problem. Given that criminal law is a reserved matter, significant initiatives cannot be generated from here, although we can agitate for suitable initiatives.
Inevitably, the DUP and other parties to my right have tried to blame the Belfast Agreement for increasing crime levels. It is a familiar tune, which they have been singing for some time. Anyone who has studied the affairs of our Province over the past 30 years will know that when the new Secretary of State arrived at Belfast International Airport in June 1997 and said that she was going to reform the RUC, we feared the worst. Knowing the political journey of that particular Secretary of State, we feared that the outcome would be worse than our worst fears. Therefore, the appropriate response — the response taken by the Ulster Unionist Party — was to go into damage limitation mode. Given that the Government were bent upon reforming the RUC, it was best to circumscribe those reforms and ensure that the Government were given as much advice as possible while they were evolving them.
That is why the Ulster Unionist Party sought, in the Belfast Agreement, to set terms of reference for the review of policing that was going to occur whether there was an agreement or not. It is a matter of great regret to us, and something for which we are all paying a price, that the Government chose to allow the Human Rights Commission to disregard those terms of reference and to implement a series of proposals that were well beyond anything that was envisaged when those terms of reference were drawn up. None the less, the Ulster Unionist Party battled on by tabling more than 200 amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill as it was going through the Houses of Parliament. It is significant that no other Unionist party tabled any amendments.
Members must also bear in mind, and any study of Northern Ireland affairs since 1970 confirms, that every time the security forces appeared to have some success against the terrorists they were put under such an enormous barrage of publicity fire by the Republican movement that they inevitably stopped doing whatever it was that was proving effective. The history of the Government’s involvement in those affairs over the past 30 years shows that the consequences of the review of the RUC were not particularly surprising.
We must consider several matters in order to address the crime levels. When I served on the Policing Board I was fortunate to be invited, with other members, by the US Administration to New York and Washington to look at some of the actions that they had taken, and also to hear about the study that had been done on the problems of dealing with crime. I came away from that trip with much food for thought.
It would be wrong for me to try to summarise that trip in a few moments. However, I shall make some brief comments. Initiatives sometimes referred to by the inaccurate general term of "zero tolerance" were launched in New York City and in Newark, and involved a major alliance of political and civil society, the police and the criminal justice system working together to address a common problem. It will be essential for us to work together, whether we try to address those problems in Northern Ireland, England or anywhere else. We have to be particularly mindful of the crucial role of the criminal justice system and the courts’ sentencing policies.
The inadequacy of the sentences being handed out bears down heavily on the morale of the police force, particularly after officers have gone to great trouble and effort and have faced other difficulties, often at personal risk, to bring people to court and get a conviction. I urge the Northern Ireland Office and the Westminster Government to look at that matter closely, because it is still their responsibility.
Although the nominal number of police officers is more than double what it was in 1969, I am aware, as most Members are, that the numbers actually serving are very low. For that reason, the Ulster Unionist Party has consistently taken the line that the future of the full-time and part-time reserve must be secured to give its men and women some contractual certainty for the time being. Police numbers should be reviewed in a few years, in the light of the numbers who leave and join the force. In the meantime, we need every available police officer, and they must be given that certainty of tenure.
I endorse the comments of my Colleague, Sir John Gorman, and those of Members of the DUP, who said that Sinn Féin’s amendment, as usual, tries to re-present the issue. It clearly implies that there is something wrong with the current police force. I reject that assertion: the police have been, and are, doing a commendably good job in exceedingly difficult circumstances. I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind Members that time is moving on, and, because the debate is limited to two hours, I ask the remaining Members to limit their speeches to four minutes.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. It is important that we raise the issues and talk about crime detection rates and why we need more police on the streets.
Sinn Féin sits in the Assembly decrying the new police force by saying that it does not represent the community. The more we hear that, the more we realise how discriminatory and two-faced that party’s comments are. The changes recommended in the Patten Report were not designed to catch more criminals; indeed, they have had the opposite effect. They have caused crime to increase. There is more crime on the street; more people are under threat from criminals and many people’s insecurity has increased.
Sinn Féin thinks that the police force is not representative of this community. It is representative of the community. To take this comment to its logical conclusion, there would have to be a minority of Protestants on the police force for it to be acceptable to Sinn Féin. According to the policing provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, 50% of the police force must be Roman Catholic, and the other 50% must be made up from the other religions in Northern Ireland. Surely Sinn Féin should be crowing with delight that this institutionalised discrimination was made legal by the Patten Report.
Sinn Féin has also ensured that its old adversaries in Special Branch and the CID have had to leave because it does not consider them to be the kind of officers that are needed in peacetime. Perhaps the real reason that they had to leave is that those officers know far too much about certain Members and Ministers. The removal of many of those officers and anyone over 30 serving in the worthy and honourable Royal Ulster Constabulary has left this country on its knees. Youths and organised criminals have taken over night by night. We hear stories of elderly people being beaten and robbed in their homes; joyriding accidents leave families across the Province grieving; and the knife culture is getting out of control.
There have been two knife-related murders in my constituency in the past two months. We must ask why that is happening. It is happening because Sinn Féin has reduced the numbers of PSNI officers on the street, disbanded the RUC and taken away its name. The police force has been reconstructed. If Sinn Féin thinks that it has fooled anyone apart from its own people, it is breathing the thin air that some of its colleagues are breathing in Colombia. It is in Sinn Féin’s interest never to support the Police Service. In that way it can give its old IRA buddies something to do by providing them with a weak and overstretched target to have fun with, while trying to cover up what is going on in Colombia with civil disturbances and riots in flashpoint areas. By withholding support from the new Police Service, Sinn Féin can ensure that it does not hit one of its own when orchestrating riots or community attacks.
As I said, two people have died as a result of stabbing incidents recently in my constituency. The increased use of knives worries me. The police cannot respond because of the numbers they have — or do not have — on the streets. People are having their property damaged by vandals who cannot be caught because there are not enough officers to patrol the streets, and people are being beaten, stabbed, shot and intimidated because the police force does not have enough officers to ensure that it knows what is happening so that it can safeguard people against crimes.
My constituency of Strangford is a large area with crime rates that make it sound like the wild west. Post office robberies are a source of concern. Elderly people are victims because the offices are targeted on pension day. The area has a proud tradition of people from both sides of the community and both religious persuasions joining the police. The situation is indefensible. We need officers, but unfortunately we cannot get them because Sinn Féin has depleted the force and left the whole country susceptible to the baser side of the human race. I support the motion.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome this timely opportunity to debate the vital issues of the rise in crime and the acts of Sinn Féin and the Republican movement over the past few months. The Westminster Government are weak on policing. I welcome the Secretary of State’s initiative of creating a task force with a remit to tackle organised crime. It has had some notable success. However, a concerted effort is needed to right the wrongs in our society, because every time the police force has been successful, it has had its wings clipped.
Cash robberies here amount to one fifth of the UK total. The amount of counterfeit goods seized in 2001 was greater than the total in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most of this crime is in areas where Sinn Féin’s supporters reside. The extent of the problems that confront us is clear. The effects of claims are demonstrated by the overly high insurance premiums that are burdening businesses and vehicle owners alike. We know well the problems before us. Fuel smuggling, alcohol and drug abuse and thuggery have their roots in Republican paramilitary organisations in Republican areas. Being a democrat, I am opposed to all criminal acts, particularly punishment beatings. I recognise that such beatings have become almost a daily occurrence. I urge the Government to show law-abiding citizens that crime does not pay.
As we know, Sinn Féin and its Republican following are acting irresponsibly. To support the forces of law and order would not be consistent for a party that attempted to undermine law and order in the Province for over 30 years, that has a structure of a political wing and a military wing and that believes it is judge, jury and executioner.
Most of our problems require apposite actions. It is fine for Sinn Féin to talk about getting rid of Special Branch, but what about Sinn Féin’s secret special branch that targets Government officials? What sort of society do we live in when ambulance and hospital personnel constantly come under attack while carrying out their duties? Young people in north Belfast and elsewhere must no longer have a free rein to attack the security forces and citizens. Sinn Féin and its Republican army must accept their share of the blame for the situation. It is surely double standards for Sinn Féin, on the one hand, to hold the office of Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and, on the other hand, to allow its party supporters to intimidate people and to carry out crime at a cost to the taxpayer. Any political party that teaches and encourages young people to have no regard for law and order must answer for the consequences.
The Westminster Government must also shoulder responsibility for failing our judicial system. Even if perpetrators of crime are caught, they will probably not be dealt with appropriately. The Westminster Government are weak on administering deterrents to crime. We need more effective deterrents.

John Taylor: Does the Member agree that responsibility for policing in Northern Ireland rests not with the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Policing Board but, ultimately, with the Government in London? It is the London Government, through the Patten Report, that have undermined policing in Northern Ireland, brought the manpower of the police to below 7,000 — it was 9,000 — and brought about the present increase in crime in Northern Ireland. This is why I will certainly support this motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member does not have time to respond. I ask him to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Billy Armstrong: It is time that Sinn Féin got rid of its "special branch" and its army and let us get on with the peace process. I welcome this debate.

Ms Jane Morrice: I must advise the Member that we have only one minute left before the winding-up speeches.

Mr Mark Robinson: The current levels of crime are extremely worrying, and, in particular, I want to draw attention to my own constituency of South Belfast, which has been experiencing a significant upsurge in crime levels. I have represented the constituency of South Belfast for the past four years and never has the issue of crime been of such prominence.
I will detail the types of crimes that have been perpetrated in my area. Only recently the body of a 39-year-old woman was pulled from the River Lagan, a murder took place in the Markets area and an armed robbery took place at a fast-food restaurant on the Donegall Road. In recent months two students have been viciously attacked in their home, elderly residents have been attacked and robbed in their homes, and there have been numerous armed robberies. In fact, the owner of a local newsagent situated close to my constituency office has been the victim of armed robbery on six occasions in the last seven months. There has been a 42% increase in sex attacks in South Belfast in this year alone. This is an extremely worrying situation, and, unfortunately, the people who suffer are the decent law-abiding citizens who live in the area.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am afraid that time being of the essence, I must ask the proposers of the amendments to make their winding-up speeches.

Mr Alex Attwood: James Leslie was correct to say that we should compare our crime figures with those in other parts of the island. However, whatever our crime rates might be, it must be acknowledged that most people in Northern Ireland are civil and orderly. There are difficulties, and they may become more intense in some areas of the North. However, those difficulties must be considered in the context of our community’s, by and large, upholding good and decent family and community values.
Sir John Gorman asked me directly why the SDLP could not support the motion. I understand why he supports the wording of the motion. However, he would appreciate that we wanted to consider its subtext, and it is clear from contributions that the motion is anti-Patten in intention and substance. It would be alien to our political beliefs and our support of the Patten Commission Report to support a motion that is anti-Patten. Given what ensued during the debate, it is inconceivable that we could support the motion.
Alex Maskey asked how the people of east Belfast and the Short Strand were to experience the new beginning to policing, given recent events in that community. I will not walk away from that question, because if any policing is wrong, we are prepared to say so and to propose corrective strategies. If there is good policing, we are prepared to acknowledge that.
Although people may demean the work of the Police Ombudsman, no investigative office in the world that deals with complaints against the police has more powers or resources to call erring police officers and a police service to account. When the police raid houses in a way that breaches proper standards and human rights, as happened in east Belfast and in Derry after the Castlereagh break-in, we are prepared to tell the police that they should review protocols and change them, and enforce orders that govern how they conduct themselves in such raids. When police officers offend human rights substantially, and there is prima facie evidence to support that contention, those officers should be suspended, pending a full investigation into their activities. That strategy will correct wrongful policing. Some people hope that the SDLP gets policing wrong so that they can gain political advantage.
Norman Boyd asked about the availability of officers in police stations. That is a valid point. In too many areas of the North, there are not enough police officers on the ground.
To return to what Bob McCartney said, if Bangor were compared to a town of a similar size in Britain, the current quota of police officers in north Down would outweigh that in Britain.

John Taylor: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alex Attwood: I gave way four times during my speech; I will not give way now.
Bob McCartney referred to 20% of officers in north Down being on long-term sick leave. He also referred to the excessive numbers of police officers who are on special protection duties for notables in north Down. Many police officers are on restricted duties, and many are based in police stations and police headquarters rather than on the ground.
To say that the problem is about numbers and that the numbers should be increased, thereby protecting the full-time Reserve, misses the real issue about management of manpower in the police. There are not sufficient numbers on the ground because there are too many in police stations and police buildings, too many involved in desk duties, too many on sick leave, too many on VIP protection and too many on restricted duties.
A manpower strategy is required to free more police to serve more communities in more towns, villages and hamlets around the North. Merely protecting the full-time Reserve will not get to grips with the fundamental issue of manpower.
Ian Paisley Jnr said that people from constituencies around the North, including West Belfast, were joining the Police Service. He suggested that I said it is proportionate to the numbers living in those constituencies. It is not. In every constituency people, even those who have had difficult experiences of policing over the past 30 years, now have the confidence to join the Police Service.
In her report on the Omagh bombing Nuala O’Loan said that she got five and a half out of six for what the Policing Board did. In my view, she got six and a half out of six. The Policing Board, by having a presence at board level and on the ground in Omagh, will ensure that the investigation brings those who are guilty of that crime to justice. It is a far superior model of accountability and investigation.
I challenge anyone to read what I, or Joe Byrne, have said in this debate and confirm to us what one Member claimed we said — namely, that we are anti-police, anti-Protestant and anti-Special Branch. I challenge anyone to confirm that any of those allegations are true.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As Alex Maskey said, we share the concerns in the motion about the levels of crime, especially against the elderly. However, as the debate has unfolded it is evident that it is not about policing. It is about a continuation of the attempted demonisation of Sinn Féin — an attempt to make Sinn Féin a scapegoat. It is ironic that the DUP brought this motion to the Floor of the House. The first RUC man to be murdered in the past 30 years was murdered on the Shankill Road in a political climate that had been engendered by the leader of the DUP and in a political environment that it had sought to stir up against the RUC. The DUP’s stated policy was to oppose the RUC because the RUC did not fulfil its desires or wishes.
There are Members on the other side of the House who were around at that time and know the input that the party that brought the motion to the House had with regard to policing in the Six Counties. It was not a very honourable policy on, or commitment to, policing, and that continues. Policing was OK as long as it was OK with the DUP. Policing was OK as long as the doors of Fenian houses were being battered down and as long as the status quo, according to the DUP, was being upheld. It is hypocritical of that party to bring to the Floor of the Chamber a motion that condemns, or attempts to condemn, Sinn Féin for its desire to bring about a proper policing service for this part of Ireland.
We should not forget that Sinn Féin participated fully in the negotiations surrounding the Good Friday Agreement and that those negotiations included elements that addressed policing. Sinn Féin was prepared to accept a compromise — [Interruption].

Mr Paul Berry: Gunrunner.

Mr John Kelly: Let him go, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We understand about gunrunning from the DUP.
The DUP attempted to undermine the Patten Commission; Sinn Féin was prepared to accept the compromise — [Interruption].
I think it is coming from Séamus Shannon, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Lest it be forgotten, Sinn Féin is committed to having a policing service — it is not opposed to that — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Sinn Féin’s amendment reads:
"and believes that it is essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control";
the kind of partisan political control that those Members and their leader on that side of the House attempted to exert on the policing service in this part of Ireland over the years. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr John Kelly: The amendment continues:
"accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with Human Rights norms."
I ask any Member — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr John Kelly: I ask any Member to tell me what is wrong with the sentiments expressed in the amendment.
There is no doubt that the motion was tabled for one reason only — to continue the struggle and the war within Unionism. The DUP is attempting to out-manoeuvre and out-fox the Official Unionist Party. That is the aim of the motion; it is not about policing. It does not address the fundamentals of a policing service. It does not attempt to address those issues — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. This is the second time that I have risen. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Ms Mary Nelis: Throw them out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Order.

Mr John Kelly: This is an attempt — [Interruption].
In some ways, the DUP is paying us a compliment by continually interrupting. Obviously, the truth is hitting very hard, and the DUP does not like to hear it. That is evidence of the hypocrisy in the DUP’s fundamentalism — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Shannon: Gunrunner.

Mr John Kelly: I will allow the DUP Members their little bit of fun because it is interesting to listen to some of their asinine remarks.
The DUP tabled the motion in an attempt to continue to demonise Sinn Féin. However, more important is the DUP’s attempt to continue its war against the Official Unionist Party. That is what the DUP is all about; its focus is not on policing but on the next election. UUP Members should be aware of the DUP’s maverick conduct — that conduct will continue for the remainder of the year.

Mr Sammy Wilson: It is hard to know how to follow the rant of the gunrunner from mid-Ulster. Listening to what he said — and his valiant defence of the RUC — one could conclude that his party never had any intention of hurting the RUC or the police, and that when he ran guns into Northern Ireland he had no intention of their being used against those who would — [Interruption].

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not convicted of gunrunning at any stage in my versatile career. Would the Member like to withdraw his comments? [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I cannot hear the Member’s point of order. While I am on my feet, Members must take their seats. I would appreciate being able to hear the point of order so that I can respond.

Mr John Kelly: As I was not convicted of gunrunning in my career in the Republican movement, I ask the Member to withdraw that allegation.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind the Member that there is a right to respond to allegations. However, I shall examine Hansard and respond to the point of order at a later date. I ask Mr Wilson to continue, and to be wary of the language that he uses.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Perhaps when you are looking at Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will also look at the ‘Magill’ magazine documentary that outlined the career of the Member who raised the point of order. What this debate has shown is that Sinn Féin runs scared of any policing issue; it always wants to pass the blame. Alex Maskey blames the police for car crime in west Belfast. The fact that, for 30 years, the party to which he belongs encouraged car theft so that joyriders could run around west Belfast, going through roadblocks, stretching police resources, has been totally ignored. Sinn Féin says that is all the fault of the police.
In the Short Strand recently, it was the police’s fault that a mob, organised and led by IRA/Sinn Féin, came onto the streets. When the police respond, they are accused of beating young Nationalists. Sinn Féin want to be treated as democrats; however, when they see any acceptance of the police materialising in Nationalist areas, they create the situations that led to the confrontation that resulted in the police’s having to take action to defend themselves and a vulnerable Protestant community on the outskirts of the Short Strand. Such action enabled Sinn Féin to say that the police have not changed.
Those people have manipulated circumstances in Northern Ireland to ensure that the police are not accepted, despite all the changes that have been made. John Kelly’s rant is an indication that Sinn Féin does not like to be faced with the truth of its attitude and actions towards policing in Northern Ireland.
I wish to address some of Alex Attwood’s points. I accept that the SDLP has made sacrifices by signing up to the Policing Board, yet I do not agree with everything that it has done or said. The Policing Board has conducted robust debates. Nevertheless, I accept that the SDLP has at least been prepared to play a part in policing. It is a pity that, after the speech that he made, Mr Attwood felt the need to hang on Sinn Féin’s coat-tails. He talked about suspending police officers because of the crescendo of cries from Sinn Féin representatives when the police enter areas to take action against rioters. That will only help to demoralise the police further.
When talking about police numbers, Mr Attwood says that it is not merely about protecting the full-time Reserve — he steers away from that difficult question. The SDLP will have to make up its mind. What do we do with 2,500 officers who are needed on the streets, but are demoralised because their contracts have not been renewed, and who are treated far worse than any other workers that I know of in Northern Ireland?
The SDLP will have to make up its mind about what it will do about those officers.
I expected some washing of the hands in this debate by Ulster Unionist Party Members. It was odd to hear Billy Armstrong talk about the political and military wing of IRA/Sinn Féin and the fact that it was a scandal to have a Sinn Féin Health Minister who allowed crime — a drain on the Northern Ireland taxpayer — to continue. However, how did the Minister of Health achieve her position? Billy Armstrong — from what I remember — walked through one of the Lobbies to put her there. One cannot condemn Sinn Féin/IRA for its attitude to policing on the one hand and, on the other, put them into ministerial positions.

Mr Gregory Campbell: You can if you are an Ulster Unionist.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Then perhaps you can.
Mr Leslie said that the Ulster Unionist Party had tried to engage in damage limitation. God help us if it thinks that the Patten Commission and the Patten Report amount to damage limitation — they have destroyed the police. We are told that it is because the Government, once again, broke faith with the Ulster Unionist Party — they did not abide by the terms of the agreement that they had signed. I remind Mr Leslie of the agreement’s terms of reference on the establishment of a police commission, to which he agreed:
"Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support".
Every aspect of the Patten proposals was involved — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: — in those terms of reference, which the Ulster Unionist Party not only negotiated but sold to the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it cannot now wash its hands and blame the London Government.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will the Member bring his winding-up speech to a close?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Sinn Féin tried to wash its hands of its support for criminality, which has led to a decline in social structures in its community. Equally, Ulster Unionists cannot wash their hands of their responsibility for encouraging a proposal that has destroyed the police.

Ms Jane Morrice: We now move to the vote. I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall.
Question put

Mr Alan McFarland: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify which vote you are talking about, as there seems to be some confusion?

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that point of order. If clarification is needed, I am happy to give it. The vote is on amendment No 1 on the Marshalled List, which stands in the names of Mr Maskey and John Kelly of Sinn Féin.
Question negatived.

Ms Jane Morrice: Amendment No 2 on the Marshalled List stands in the names of Mr Attwood and Mr ONeill of the SDLP.
Question
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 47; Noes 14
Ayes
Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Bairbre de Brún, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the increasing levels of crime and falling crime detection rates in Northern Ireland and condemns the public stance adopted by Sinn Féin to the police in Northern Ireland.

Joint Parliamentary Forum

Mr David Ford: I beg to move
That this Assembly instructs the Speaker to nominate a number of Members to enter into negotiations with the appropriate body in the Oireachtas with a view to establishing a joint parliamentary forum to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern as detailed in strand two, paragraph 18 of the Good Friday Agreement.
[Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr David Ford: There has been much debate in this Chamber about the agreement, and doubtless that will continue. Accusations are continually levelled at those who do or do not carry out their duties under the agreement. The fact that we cannot decide whether to call it the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement demonstrates our problems.
The motion highlights one aspect of the agreement on which there has been no progress at all. It may not be the most significant issue in the agreement — there are many more important matters — but it is one for which action is required of the Assembly. We are used to seeing party representatives wagging their fingers and accusing each other of not living up to their obligations. However, we have brought the motion because the Assembly has a collective responsibility to take action on this matter.
Paragraph 18 of strand 2 of the agreement directs
"The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern."
The motion addresses that. It instructs the Speaker to nominate Members to engage in discussions with the authorities in the Oireachtas. It is not a prescriptive resolution. It does not define the outcome; it simply paves the way for the establishment of a joint forum in which matters of mutual interest can be discussed. For example, it might provide a format in which informal contacts in Committees could be maintained more significantly. It will certainly provide an opportunity for people from the Assembly to inform TDs of the real concerns of Northern Ireland’s people. I have no doubt that Northern Ireland is ignorant of the realities of life in the Republic. However, ignorance in the Republic of the realities of life here is vast.
When the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was established in Dublin in the wake of the 1994 ceasefires, Alliance was the only non-Nationalist party from either part of the island to attend, along with the independent Senator, the late Gordon Wilson. I have no doubt that my party’s presence, and the formal and informal contacts we made, assisted Southern representatives to understand the concerns of people across the breadth of opinion in Northern Ireland.
It would have been better had Unionists been there to put their own cases. I repeat that whatever ignorance there may be in Northern Ireland regarding matters in the Republic, there is no doubt that the Republic’s ignorance of matters in Northern Ireland is even greater. Some of the suggestions put forward by Alliance on difficult issues, such as the recognition of Northern teaching qualifications in the Republic for anybody who wishes to move South, or the future of the Adelaide Hospital with its Protestant foundation, made some TDs and Senators sit up. That confrontation was necessary. The problems of sectarian thinking in official policy are the same down there are they are up here, and TDs and Senators must still be confronted about them. The issues of equality and human rights do not concern only Northern Ireland, but are prevalent in both jurisdictions.
The motion as it stands is a relatively easy one for Nationalists; however, it is important that Unionists also show a willingness to play their part in improving relationships across the island, without retreating into the laager mentality preferred by some of their anti-agreement members. The Ulster Unionist Party leadership must lead its followers. Having signed up to the agreement in 1998, they should put in place its full operation.
I was surprised and interested to hear on the BBC that representatives from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister discussed this matter in Dublin last night. Members have heard me complain on numerous occasions about the failings of the Executive, the inadequacies of legislation, the difficulty in bringing in the Programme for Government. Those matters are the direct responsibility of Ministers. Yet it seems — because no official spokesman for OFMDFM has denied the reports that I heard on the BBC last night — that they had time to discuss this motion in a meeting between Government Ministers. This motion has nothing to do with the Executive or the Cabinet in Dublin. It is a matter for the Assembly and the Oireachtas to debate.
Members from both parties that are represented in OFMDFM are in the Chamber. During the course of the debate, will they ask their Ministers to tell Members whether there was truth in the BBC’s story; whether the story was leaked to the BBC by OFMDFM; and whether they discussed the motion? Will they tell us the outcome of the discussions? Will they support the motion to ensure that the Assembly lives up to this part of its responsibilities under the agreement, because that is what the motion is for, and that is what the Assembly should do? I commend the motion.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I will not support the motion. I am neither against better North/South co-operation in principle nor against gaining mutual benefit through such co-operation, but we must consider the wording of the motion carefully. It adopts an imperative tone, and talks about instructing the Speaker. That contrasts with paragraph 18 of strand two, which says only that consideration should be given to creating such a body, so Mr Ford’s motion goes too far.
In opposing the motion —

Mr David Ford: If that is so, will the Member say why the Ulster Unionist Party failed to table an amendment?

Dr Esmond Birnie: Although the motion may be incompetent, that does not necessarily require the UUP to table an amendment. The UUP is not against North/South discussions per se. However, we stress the need for a careful evaluation of whether a new institution should be created under the agreement. Given that several institutions have been established, it seems sensible to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of creating another one.
That is especially the case given that several organisations, such as the Civic Forum, the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Economic Development Forum, can interact with their counterparts in the Republic to facilitate discussion on North/South issues of mutual benefit to civic society and promote co-operation.
The role of the Assembly may be raised. The Assembly has exercised its scrutiny power to maintain the budgets of the implementation bodies of the North/ South Ministerial Council. Similarly, the Assembly’s Committees can scrutinise the six North/South implementation bodies and the six areas of co-operation through existing agencies. Therefore, it is by no means self-evident that a further consultative body, linking the Dáil and the Assembly, would be beneficial, but we must consider the benefits against the costs — a measure for which the agreement provides.
I caution against accepting the motion because it would inevitably add to the workload of several Members and disrupt the Assembly’s business. If passed, the motion would lead to Members having to attend meetings with their counterparts in the Southern institutions, and, of course, that would take Members away from plenary and Committee sessions. That point was discussed at length today in the context of how Members’ involvement in other bodies might lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of the Assembly.
The motion goes beyond the terms of the agreement; therefore my party will not support it.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome Mr Ford’s motion. Dr Birnie’s speech reminds me of the curate’s egg: it is good in parts and equally bad in others.
The Good Friday Agreement imposed a duty on the Assembly to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, and the motion points to that obligation. It is disingenuous of Unionists to claim that, technically, the motion goes too far, and it is too imperative. Dr Birnie failed in his valiant attempt to justify the Unionist position. We must properly consider a North/South parliamentary forum. I take comfort that Dr Birnie, on behalf of his party, does not reject a North/South parliamentary forum, but rather delays consideration of it.
Let us consider the benefits of a forum. As Committee members, we have met and participated in useful discussions with Members of the Oireachtas and Committees of Dáil Éireann. I am sure that my old friend Sir John Gorman recalls an interesting and productive meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill with TDs and members of the Garda Síochána.
No Unionist in the House — and I include the DUP — has anything to fear from a joint parliamentary forum.

Rev William McCrea: Let us speak for ourselves.

Mr Alban Maginness: I am sure that Rev Dr McCrea will speak for himself. He is more than capable of doing so.
Unionists have nothing to fear from engaging with parliamentarians south of the border, and vice versa. Similarly, parliamentarians from throughout Europe have nothing to fear from engaging with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. The motion is not a threat to Unionists. There is much to learn from an interchange of views. The proposal is not to establish a covert all-Ireland parliament, much as I would love to see that. Rather, it is an attempt to bring people from North and South together in politics.
We should develop a policy of good neighbourliness between the North and the South.
What is there to fear from that? Unionists will remain Unionists; Nationalists will remain Nationalists, and Republicans and Loyalists will also remain the same. The SDLP supports the motion. The proposed arrangement is part of the agreement; it is centred in the agreement, and the mandate for this House comes from the agreement. A joint forum is part of the process of reconciliation between the people of Ireland, North and South, and it is important to develop that.
Public representatives from North and South meet in other political spheres. Our councillors — and not only those along the border — whether Unionist or Nationalist, SDLP or Sinn Féin, meet with colleagues in the South. They meet under the auspices of the Local Authority Members Association (LAMA). Many Members have engaged in those meetings and found them to be productive and useful. If councillors can meet at that level, why can we not meet at the most important level of politics in Northern Ireland?
I reiterate to my Unionist Colleagues and friends that there is nothing to fear from this. The North/South Ministerial Council deals with Executive functions and policies between the two Governments. The Council is subject to the critical examination of the Assembly. However, a joint forum would involve Members of this Assembly meeting Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to discuss all sorts of common issues. That would be of great benefit to all our people, North and South. I support the motion, and I hope that Unionist colleagues will refrain from opposing the motion and will wish it well.

Mr Gregory Campbell: First, I must make it clear that I, and many of my Colleagues, have tried to respond positively over the years to invitations from the Irish Republic to go to that country and make our views known on why we are distinct and different — why Northern Ireland is a separate entity, jurisdiction and country and will remain so over the decades and further into the future. Mr Davis frequently mentions the 1982 Assembly in the Chamber — why should he not do so? I recall, back in those halcyon days, shortly after being elected to that Assembly, going to the Republic to what was almost the shadow of the Dáil to tell people exactly why Northern Ireland would remain separate from the Irish Republic. It is a separate entity, a separate country, and it will never, ever be united with the Irish Republic.
I take the motion at face value. I do not doubt in any way the Alliance Party leader’s motive for the motion or call into question his rationale for it. If a joint forum would simply promote greater dialogue on issues of mutual interest and concern between Northern Ireland and the Republic, I would welcome it. However, we must examine the evidence and rationale under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.
Some four years ago, the First Minister said that the counterbalance to the North/South pressure — the North/ South Ministerial Council and the greater involvement on a North/South basis — would be involvement on an east-west basis: the British-Irish contingency.
Therefore I asked how many British-Irish Council and North/South Ministerial Council meetings had taken place. Not to my, or anyone else’s, surprise, I was told that there had been 50 North/South Ministerial Council meetings and five British-Irish Council meetings. Ten times more emphasis is placed on Council meetings on the North/South axis than on the natural east-west axis. That appears to lie at the heart of the North/South promotion.
Alban Maginness, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, makes the case that Unionists will still be Unionists after North/South discussions, and Nationalists will still be Nationalists. He does not seem to understand that the difference is that when Nationalists take part in east-west discussions, no Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or other politician in Great Britain wants Nationalists to be British. No one engaged in east-west dialogue wants to build a political basis that will in some way encompass the Nationalist viewpoint and make Nationalists feel that they are British. However, an examination of "North/Southery" shows that it is designed to make Unionists feel more Irish. That is always at the root of it.
Many people in the Nationalist and Republican community want to develop education in a North/South context — an all-Ireland context. Higher education, tourism, health, agriculture, economic development, policing — there is no end to the issues that Nationalists and Republicans want to develop on a North/South basis. Is it simply to get more effective policing or a better education system? Of course it is not. If it were simply that, they would sit down with Unionists in Northern Ireland and discuss the problems. Efforts would be made to determine the fault lines in education, health, tourism or whatever, and methods would be devised to improve them.
However, Nationalists and Republicans seem to think that improvement equals "North/Southery"; that a better education system and better economic development are possible only on an all-Ireland basis. They can approach any issue and turn it into greater North/South co-operation. For about seven years there has been a nonsensical attitude in the Irish Republic, and even in the Nationalist and Republican community, that tries to take the sharp edge off Irishness and remove aggressive behaviour on St Patrick’s Day. They do that not because they want more people to celebrate St Patrick’s Day but because they want Unionists to think that they can now embrace this sense of Irishness.
Unfortunately, although I do not attribute any of this rationale to Mr Ford or his underlying analysis for suggesting the forum, that is what lies at the root of any proposals that I have ever seen for North/South co-operation. I speak as someone who goes frequently to the Irish Republic, and who will continue to do so, not because I am open to being persuaded to do the impossible — to become an Irish citizen — or to accept that Irish nationhood can be expanded to take account of my Britishness, because it cannot — [Interruption].

Mr Alban Maginness: Nobody is suggesting that.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Alban Maginness was absent when I spoke earlier, so I will repeat what I said briefly for his benefit. People who promote "North/Southery" can turn everything — attitudes, Government functions, promotion of the usual co-operation and discussion that takes place between adjoining countries — into a basis for future incorporation into a re-formed all-Ireland state. However, that never happens on an east-west basis.
Neither Mr Maginness nor any other Nationalist will ever go to an east-west dialogue —

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will give way in a minute if the Member will let me finish. No Nationalist or Republican will go to an east-west set of talks and sit beside people on the British side of the argument trying to persuade them that they are British and that their sense of Irishness is misplaced. However, that is what I come up against every time I go to the Irish Republic — that I am a misplaced Irishman — and in some way they are trying to change Irishness to make me feel that I am Irish.

Mr Alban Maginness: The SDLP and Members from Dáil Éireann participate in the British-Irish parliamentary tier, while, unfortunately, Unionists do not. What is the difference between those forums? They may have different personnel, but they are essentially the same sort of forum. We do participate.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I was not accusing Mr Maginness or Nationalists of non-participation, but he inadvertently makes my point for me. He knows that the origin of the parliamentary tier that he refers to was the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which, like the Belfast Agreement, Unionists viewed as an attempt to make us feel Irish when we are not and never, ever will be. There is nothing that anyone can do in the Irish Republic or in the Gaelic or Irish tradition that will make Unionists feel less British. Even if the British Government do not want us, it does not matter. We will be no less British.
The Member makes my point for me when he refers to a body that was viewed with suspicion for precisely the reason that I have given — the wish was to establish a forum where Unionists could gradually, over time be shown that the Irish Republic is not the big, bad nation that they feel it to be. Perhaps over time they can get accustomed to the Irish language, the Irish culture and everything about the Irish nation state. That is the seedbed of the Belfast Agreement.
That is why we so oppose the Ulster Unionists. Whether they recognise it or not, they are blindly encompassing a scenario that will eventually — not tomorrow, next week or next month, but over a period of years — lead to them and those like them who are defeatist in outlook saying, as some already are, that perhaps Irish nationhood is not so bad now because it has been changed. Articles 2 and 3 have been dropped, and their outlook has changed.
I do not want in any way to undermine the bona fides of the Alliance Party, which moved this motion for its own perfectly legitimate reasons. I simply do not accept those reasons. I do not accept that those who would be promoting the forum, those who would be behind it and those who would find it a useful tool would simply say to the Alliance Party: "This is nice as far as it goes, and we will allow it to sit here and promote greater dialogue between North and South". They would conveniently hitch it onto their own agenda, as they have hitched everything else. It would be used to drive forward the North/South bandwagon, which we as traditional Unionists will resist for years and decades to come.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar na tairisceana atáimid a chaibidil inniu. I support the motion. It is surprising that Mr Campbell is surprised that Members have an agenda. That reminds me of a Member accusing another Member of making a political speech one day. Mr Campbell seems so secure in one breath in his Unionism and Britishness, yet in another breath he is afraid of the political cat.
Dr Birnie’s remarks are at best unenlightened and lacking in generosity. Splitting hairs and dancing on the head of a pin is in no way convincing.
Perhaps Dr Birnie drew the short straw in the group in having to defend the indefensible. Perhaps Mr Campbell is right. Perhaps it is because of an impending election — meaning that there will be more of the same unenlightenment in the months ahead, with the rejection of specific aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, which the UUP has already endorsed. That position is neither honest nor sustainable.
I am challenged to be measured in my comments, and that is very difficult. Unionist councillors and Ministers are heavily involved in cross-border arrangements, as has been outlined by Mr Alban Maginness. Why then is the middle tier of political office not involved, given that there is ministerial co-operation and councillor co-operation? For example, Unionist councillors on Omagh District Council have their hands up to go to conferences south of the border before they even know what is at issue. Everyone in Omagh District Council knows that when Killarney or Clare, or any of the annual conference venues, is mentioned, the Unionist hands go up. It is only then that they find out what the conference is about. I will not name those Unionist members who queue up weekly in an orderly fashion in their jeeps at Emyvale, Lifford and just south of Newry for cheap diesel.
I commend the Alliance Party for tabling the motion. It is not strong enough. Why is there delay over something that should happen immediately? It should have happened yesterday. The establishment of an all-island body for Members of the Assembly and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas is a priority for my party. It is consistent with the principles and ethos of the Good Friday Agreement, and it is accurately detailed in the wording of the motion, where reference is made to "strand two, paragraph 18". Agus as Gaeilge:
"Déanfaidh Tionól Thuaisceart Éireann agus an tOireachtas breithniú i dtaobh comhfhóram parlaiminteach a fhorbairt, ina dtabharfar le chéile uimhreacha comhionanna ón dá institiúid chun ábhair chomhleasa agus chomhimní a phlé."
"The Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern."
I cannot understand the Ulster Unionist attitude on this matter, except to put it in the context of the battle with the DUP.
At the core, there is a recognition of the centrality and importance of North/South relations, the importance of national reconciliation on the island, and the need to develop consultation, co-operation and action in the island of Ireland on those matters. That is already happening in the implementation bodies established through the North/South Ministerial Council: An Foras Teanga, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, the Special EU Programmes Body and others.
A joint parliamentary forum involving parliamentarians in the Twenty-six Counties and Assembly Members in the North must be established. Why? What would such a forum do? A great deal of material could be discussed and developed with a sense of purpose and urgency. That would include the implications of ‘Ireland, North and South: A Statistical Profile’, a document released recently, tourism promotion and health planning and provision, ignoring the boundaries and health bureaucracies in the country for the benefit of all citizens. It would focus on the removal of duplication and double provision and on seamless provision and the cost-effective delivery of health services. It would also include the working of the North/South Ministerial Council An Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas, the study of obstacles to mobility — plenty of food for thought there — and presenting Ireland as a unit for the development of the hard-pressed agricultural sector, North and South.
We could learn how the Industrial Development Agency might secure inward investment. I welcome the fact that Alban Maginness referred to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, Comhlacht Idirpharlaiminteach na hÉireann-na Breataine.
As an Irish citizen and an elected Member of this House, I am happy to sit on the body — it has become known as "the body", if anyone wants a laugh — in an expression of the east-west relationships, which is not my forte, as everyone will know.
I participate in the body on behalf of Sinn Féin in a spirit of reconciliation with my colleague Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, TD.
The body was formally established in 1990 as a link between the Dáil and the British Parliament, and its origins lie in the joint studies report initiated by Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey in 1980. In 1990, agreement was reached on formal constitutional rules. It was agreed that two plenary sessions would be held each year and would alternate between Ireland and Britain and that the structure would include four committees. The aim was to contribute to mutual understanding through the body’s work and through informal contacts.
High-profile people such as John Reid and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern have been involved, and there have been high-profile addresses and exchanges. Michael Mates plays a part, as does Sinn Féin. The structure includes 25 Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Westminster; 25 TDs and Senators from the Twenty-six Counties; five from this Assembly and others from Wales, Scotland, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
Surprisingly, in one sense, Unionists are not playing their part in the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, with the exception of people such as Lord Glentoran. Unionists appear to have no confidence in that body, despite all the talk about Britishness, sovereignty, the future security of the Union and about Unionists playing their part. They are certainly not playing their part in the British-Irish Parliamentary Body — another political cat that they seem afraid of.
The steering committee includes two co-chairmen, the outgoing TD Michael O’Kennedy and the MP David Winnick. Sean Neeson has also become a member, and Joe Hendron, who will make a substantive contribution, will soon replace Carmel Hanna. I have attended three plenary sessions, in Galway, Killarney and England, and that has enabled me to make political and social contacts and friendships despite political differences. There is dialogue on an east-west basis, but the Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to its taking place on a North/South basis. That attitude is very unenlightened, and we may read more into it.
Where is the Ulster Unionist Party’s political will to realise all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement? The delays are unreasonable and unacceptable. One of the reasons Sinn Féin is in the Assembly is the all-Ireland dimension. I am not afraid to say that, nor do I apologise for it. I am not going to dress that fact up in any way. We bought into the agreement so that that dimension could be realised. Our objective is to see the eventual establishment of a single parliament in Ireland, with jurisdiction over the entire country. We do not bury the fact that that is part of our ideology and philosophy, but we have no confidence in the Unionist will to engage.
Sinn Féin Members will meet party colleagues in the forum when it is established in the near future — and it will be established. We have much in common with TDs and Senators in the rest of the country. I congratulate my colleagues, TDs Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, Sean Crow, Aenghus Ó Snodaigh, Arthur Morgan and Martin Ferris, on their five-star performance in recent elections.
Every aspect of the North/South dimension of the Good Friday Agreement must be developed across all Government Departments and as outlined in the Alliance motion.

Mr Patrick Roche: In Northern Ireland, the system of government and administration contains roughly the following: 26 councils, 108 MLAs, a North/South Ministerial Council, an Intergovernmental Conference, 18 MPs, three MEPs, five education and library boards, four health and social service boards and innumerable quangos. The proposal is to add another element to that highly complex system.
I oppose the proposal and will speak about two fundamental issues that must be considered. The first is that that complex system of government is unaccountable.
5.00pm
Its unaccountability breeds incompetence. In particular, once someone is appointed under the d’Hondt system, which is like a lottery, it is impossible for the Assembly to remove that person, no matter how incompetent he or she may be.
The risk of incompetence that the proposal creates is highlighted by the "star performer" in the Executive’s league of incompetence. Every MLA will have received correspondence from Health Service professionals who have nothing against the Belfast Agreement per se, but believe that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety lacks policies to deal with the crisis of demand for services and operates no ongoing decision-making on the annual allocation of resources. In other words, there is a core element of incompetence in the Department, which, under the complex arrangements, cannot be removed. To create further complexity would simply obscure the unaccountability of Departments and reinforce the increasing incompetence that is perceived in the Executive.
Within the North/South arrangements established under the Belfast Agreement, economic policy-making in Northern Ireland has an increasingly all-Ireland focus, which is the objective of the institutions. Focus is shifting from the United Kingdom context, the only economic and social structure that is of real relevance to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, as a small area of economic activity, is highly integrated into the UK context, economically and politically.
The significance of that shift of context can be discerned in agricultural policy-making. On the one hand, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development pays enormous attention to the North/South Ministerial Council and makes speeches in Brussels on matters that lie outside her competence, highlighting the more absurd elements of SDLP policy for bringing about a so-called Europe of the regions. On the other hand, two recent expensive, glossy publications, ‘Vision for the Future of the Agri-Food Industry in Northern Ireland’ and ‘Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Business Strategy 2002’ have promising titles, but contain no policy that is relevant to Northern Ireland as an agricultural community in the UK. That is highly significant, because a mid-term review will take place in June.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has developed no concrete strategic policy. Therefore, it has not contributed to the UK negotiating position in order to represent the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture in the mid-term review. That is a crucial failure. By adding the significant dimension of another North/South or all-Ireland body, we are simply accelerating the shift away from the only context in which Northern Ireland policy should be made.
I am not the only critic of the absence of strategic policy and the concentration on insignificant all-Ireland aspects of Northern Ireland agriculture. In today’s ‘News Letter’, Dr Brian Scott, the executive director of Oxfam said that
"it is high time that the vision document’s platitudes were replaced with an honest, open and realistic public debate about the grave issues facing Northern Ireland agribusiness."
In other words, he says that the so-called vision report is devoid of any real content. The Minister has, in a sense, conceded her incapacity. In a recent statement, she referred to the limited scope of Northern Ireland representatives to shape the eventual outcome of CAP reform. The Minister acknowledged that, but what she is really acknowledging is her inability and failure to contribute real policy towards the UK negotiating position in the crucial area of agriculture. That is happening because of too much nonsensical concentration on a totally irrelevant all-Ireland context.
That type of failure under any normal system of Government would have one outcome for the Minister — she would be sacked. She would be dismissed for being entirely incapable of doing her job, but there is no way that that can be done.

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the Member give way? He has plenty of time.

Mr Patrick Roche: No. I am sorry, Mr Maginness, I do not have time. In fact, I need a lot more time.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on the relevance of the remarks? Is Mr Roche remaining within the parameters of the motion?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I remind the Member to remain within the terms of the motion.

Mr Patrick Roche: The relevance of my remarks is quite simple. We have a North/South dimension to our institutions that distracts from the proper context for policy-making, and that gives rise to vacuous government for Northern Ireland with regard to its real needs. It does not surprise me that the individual who rose to his feet does not understand that simple point. I do not think that there would be any simple point that he could understand.
To put the matter bluntly, the proposal is stupid. That should not be a surprise, given that it has emanated from the Alliance Party. I do not want to be offensive to its Members, but the Alliance Party is the party of political stupidity in Northern Ireland. That has been a core characteristic of that party under all its leaderships, without exception. It is not only the party of — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Patrick Roche: It is not only the party of political stupidity in Northern Ireland, it is the party of moral duplicity. What lies behind the proposal is a further attempt by the Alliance Party to accommodate the agenda of terrorism on this island. That is what it is really about. It did so recently, under the self-delusion that by re-designating itself, it could somehow make some massive change in the voting systems of how appointments are made here. Having been kicked in the political anatomy by the British Government, it is still at the same old game. The party is morally duplicitous, and in terms of political know-how or savvy, it is stupid to its very core.

Sir John Gorman: I cannot possibly hope to emulate Mr Roche. I shall simply provide some observations on my experience of North/South co-operation. My first experience of it was with a charming lady, Judge Catherine McGuinness, who is the chairperson of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the South of Ireland. When I was appointed chairperson of the Forum for Political Dialogue in Northern Ireland I made a point of meeting her. We had a most helpful conversation that bore out the point with which I intended to end my speech, which is "vive la différence". For those who do not speak French, that means, "long live the difference".
That forum was rather ineffective. It enabled political parties to set out their prospectuses, but it did not result in the dialogue that built up in the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, which I hope played a small part in creating the Assembly and the adversarial system evident in the House.
My second experience, as my friend Mr Alban Maginness reminded me, was meeting our opposite numbers in Dublin to find out how they dealt with the proceeds of serious crime, which is a matter of great concern here, as well as in the Republic of Ireland. We discovered some interesting facts, and I am sure that Members remember some of those. We found that, despite its statements about human rights, the Southern Government had never signed up to the EU’s civil rights legislation. When Mr Maginness and I asked them, with genuine mystery in our minds, "How did you get away with that?" They said, "We never signed it."
It is a difference that Members may not think it a good idea to emulate. It was all good-hearted and much more positive than I am now suggesting it was, because it was effective. Never mind the human rights violations, as some might call them; this is a team that includes the Inland Revenue, social services and the taxation authorities. It is headed by a senior officer of the gardaí, and over the past two years it has recovered approximately £45 million from people who had taken money from the public. The dishonesty and fraudulence had, in many ways, resulted in many poor people losing all their money.
My third experience was perhaps even stranger. The Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is chaired by my good friend Donovan McClelland, invited the Southern Government to talk to us about what they did about standards and privileges. Since much of the conversation was privileged, it would be remiss of me to go into detail. However, I can say that Members will soon see a document that will be the product of our Committee on Standards and Privileges. It will fully cover all the possible temptations that may exist to lure MLAs from the straight and narrow path. If we follow that document, we will be all right. The Southern Government would have to agree that it is superior to what appears in the Oireachtas. I end as I began, by saying long live the difference — vive la différence.

Rev William McCrea: It will come as no surprise to the Alliance Party that my Colleagues and I will be vigorously opposing the motion. I am not making a personal attack on Mr Ford. Nevertheless, he will understand that I feel that the motion has overtones ensuring that any Unionist with a sense of Unionism would have to oppose it.
5.15pm
The debate was interesting, and several points that are on the record must be addressed. Mr Alban Maginness said that there was a duty on each one of us — through the Belfast Agreement — to establish a joint parliamentary body. I want to make abundantly clear that the Belfast Agreement has put no duty on me whatsoever. I resent the Belfast Agreement, I oppose the Belfast Agreement, and I hope that the day will come soon when we can bury the Belfast Agreement. I make no apology for the stance that I take.
The debate was interesting because what developed today was a lovers’ tiff between the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin — the pro-agreement parties. It was interesting that Mr Maginness said that Mr Birnie was delaying the process of establishing the joint parliamentary body. Those words are interesting, because Mr Maginness’s interpretation was that it is a delay, not a desire to stop the process of establishment.
There have been several changes recently because of the impending election. Therefore, there may be a delay in setting up the joint parliamentary forum because an election is in the offing. One thing is said before election time, and another is said or done afterwards. That policy is without principle. My DUP Colleagues and I are open and honourable enough to tell the people where and why we stand on a principled policy. We make no apologies whatsoever. The people can make their decision accordingly. At least that is an honourable and principled position.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Since the Member mentioned political honour, the fact that his party is still present in this institution — and that, indeed, some of its members are Executive Ministers — casts doubt on the pristine purity and lack of hypocrisy in his party’s position.

Rev William McCrea: I am delighted that the Member mentioned that, because the falsehood and fallacy usually peddled by him and his party Colleagues should be buried.
A short time ago, Members stood for the Westminster election. The people knew where the DUP stood. They knew that DUP Ministers were holding offices in the Assembly, which the people gave them. I remember Dr Birnie’s leader waving his hands — as he usually does in excitement — and shouting, "Why do you not get out? Get out." He would love the DUP to get out of the Assembly. He would love DUP Ministers to leave their offices, so that those two ministries could be handed over to pro-agreement "suckers for Dublin".
The DUP is honourable to the electorate. When it runs in elections for councils, Westminster and the Assembly, the people know where it stands. It will not oscillate, as a member of the UUP did in a recent election. If you were pro-agreement, he was pro-agreement; if you were anti-agreement, he was anti-agreement. That was a totally unprincipled position, and it sums up the gobbledygook mindset of Mr Birnie and his Colleagues. I am delighted that he mentioned that, because — I am sure — he will not come back for a second portion after that exposition has been given to him.
Today, Members have been listening to doubletalk — people saying, "Of course we are not against it", while believing that the situation is sufficient. Let us be honest. The current arrangements should be sufficient for them because of the North/South Ministerial Council. I am fed up to the back teeth — and I know that many of my constituents are too — with the Assembly taking up time with ministerial statement after ministerial statement. There are more ministerial statements on cross-border bodies and cross-border meetings than there are on the duties that the Ministers are supposed to carry out. Is that a tenable position? It is nothing but total interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland, which is resented by the majority of people and the Unionist population.
Sir John Gorman posed a good question. He asked how the Dublin Government got away with not signing up to the EU’s civil rights legislation. They do it by adopting the policy of "Do as we say, not as we do". They interfere constantly in the activities of the police in Northern Ireland. People who talk about the police’s use of batons should see how the gardaí wield them.
The Irish Government interfere in every facet of the lives of people here, and this proposal would give them even greater opportunity to do so. My time is limited because there will be a winding-up speech, but Alban Maginness knows that I would be happy to continue the debate with him. His claim that the Assembly can make a "critical examination" of the North/South Ministerial Council is a joke. There can be no critical examination; I wish that there could be so that we could see exactly what emerges, because I can tell you — [Interruption].

Mr Alban Maginness: The Member is given the opportunity to do that in the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: My party is given five minutes to speak in crucial debates. I have been a politician for 29 years, and I do not regard a five-minute speech as a critical examination. It may suit some people who want to cover things up and who do not want a real examination of the nitty-gritty, but I want open government whereby people must stand over exactly what they say and do. As Unionists, we cannot support the motion.
Alban Maginness said that all Committee members have gone to Dublin; that is not true. My Committee has not gone to Dublin. The purpose of Committees is to scrutinise Ministers here. As Chairperson of the Environment Committee, my duty is to scrutinise the work of the Environment Minister, his Department and the proposals that he brings before the Committee.
Other Members may think that it is more important to pay for the Irish language to be printed on a Department’s headed paper than it is to fund what really counts, for example, the treatment of people waiting for heart operations. Public finance is being wasted. Do we need another quango or an excuse for another few dinners? Some people would go the length and breadth of the world to get a free lunch. The proposed joint parliamentary body would be merely a talking shop. We do not need more of those; we need democracy in the Province. Unfortunately, we are not getting a democratic institution because the pro-agreement clique that set up and agreed the Belfast Agreement has rigged the situation.
I believe in respect. Alban Maginness said that good neighbourliness with the South should be developed. That is exactly what we want to do, but good neighbourliness is founded on mutual respect.

Mr Alban Maginness: Hear, hear.

Rev William McCrea: Mutual respect means not claiming what is not yours. For years, however, the South of Ireland has claimed this part of the United Kingdom, and it is interfering daily in our affairs. The Irish Government claim that they have removed articles 2 and 3, but, under the Belfast Agreement, they do not need those provisions. The Belfast Agreement has given them an official, more definite position to interfere in every sector of the lives of ordinary citizens here — our health, education and tourism — and that is 10 times more valuable to them.
Many in this Province are sick to the teeth of institutions, quangos and little meetings here, there and yonder for the sake of it. That is not productive use of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money. We have good neighbourliness with the South of Ireland, but it is interesting to note what they do by comparison to what we are supposed to do. Mr Ahern says that he will not have Sinn Féin in his Government, but he is prepared to put it into ours. He has told us that there will be no settlement between the United Kingdom and the South of Ireland unless terrorist thugs are put into Government. He will not allow them on his patch, but he will make us have them on ours.
Good neighbourliness demands self-respect and mutual respect. If it is not good enough for him, it is not good enough for us. In any case, we should be bosses in our own houses. The majority in Northern Ireland should have control of the institutions and those who administer them. The people have been sold a poisoned pup. Unfortunately for some, but fortunately for this country, they will be able to have their say. They can be bitten once, but not twice. People are waking up and, with all due respect to Mr Ford and his Colleagues, they want no further interference pouring from Dublin. Let us rule honourably and democratically in our Province. For many, the chickens will soon come home to roost.

Mr David Ford: I am at a loss to reply to the variety of contributions, but I shall try to reply to substantive points.
Mr Roche’s points were substantive and helpful. Sir John Gorman mentioned some interesting examples of the benefits of North/South co-operation. However, I am not sure whether Sir John will be voting with or against us. The examples he highlighted were different from the comments of his Colleague, Dr Birnie.
I thank Mr Alban Maginness and Mr McElduff for their support. I particularly thank Mr McElduff for saying that the motion was not strong enough. It will enhance my street cred with the DUP that Sinn Féin was dissatisfied with the motion. I was a little worried that it might agree too much with me, although some of Mr McElduff’s points about the operation of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (BIIPB) were interesting.
Complaints about the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council were made recently by Dr McCrea. The proposal today is to introduce a little informal North/South co-operation on matters of mutual interest and concern in an area which is already covered by an east-west body. I agree with the DUP’s comments on the inadequacies of the east-west institutions. It is clearly the fault of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that not enough has been done about them. That does not mean that we should not examine the possibility of North/South links.
I thank Mr Campbell for his words of praise for my bona fides, which will undoubtedly enhance my street cred with Sinn Féin. Mr Campbell and Dr McCrea disagreed in their approach to the issue. My understanding of Mr Campbell’s approach is that although the motion, as we proposed it, is acceptable, it cannot pass because Republicans will play games with it. I understand Dr McCrea to have said that the motion was not at all acceptable. I made some notes, and it is clear that Mr Campbell, in several times praising the way in which the motion was introduced, referred to its precise contents. He is, however, unhappy about it.
I refer Mr Campbell to the example of his colleague, the Mayor of Derry, Cllr Mildred Garfield, who took President McAleese around the city of Londonderry. That was a practical example of North/South discussion of matters of mutual interest. The motion concerns such discussion. It does not concern another quango; neither is it a matter of complicating the system of Government. It proposes a forum in which people can meet and hold simple discussions on matters of interest.
For that reason, I find it particularly difficult to accept Dr Birnie’s response. He appeared to allege that the motion is incompetent. I assume that I have it on your authority, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on the authority of the Speaker and the Business Committee which accepted it, that the motion is not incompetent. He suggests that the words
"instructs the Speaker to nominate a number of Members to enter into negotiations"
contradict "consider developing a joint parliamentary forum." How else could we consider it in any meaningful way? It cannot be done by sitting here. The possible benefits of establishing a joint forum can be considered only by discussion with the other partner.
Therefore it appears to me that Dr Birnie — [Interruption].

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for giving way. The motion proposes the establishment of a joint parliamentary forum. It presupposes that the consideration of such a body will reach an affirmative conclusion, whereas the agreement specifies that a joint parliamentary forum will be considered.

Mr David Ford: The words "with a view to establishing" are clearly used to allow the Members nominated by the Speaker of this House and those of the Oireachtas to consider the potential benefits of such a body and how it might operate.
The UUP, with the possible exception of Sir John Gorman, intends to end all debate. Did the UUP endorse the Belfast Agreement? Is it running scared of the DUP as it frequently does on occasions such as this? I see Dr Birnie jumping in his seat, but I will not give way again.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I was moving my chair.

Mr David Ford: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but Dr Birnie looked so enthusiastic. The UUP is running scared from that to which it agreed. It is running scared of the DUP and the anti-agreement brigade. If the UUP had any sense of what it had agreed to four years ago, it would see the motion as a way in which practical work could be done and matters of mutual interest could be discussed without any constitutional ramifications. It would enthusiastically support the motion as opposed to running fricht. Having failed to outline what Ministers may have been discussing last night, it is clear that the UUP has nothing to contribute to the debate. The motion should be passed regardless of the fear of Ulster Unionist Members.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 25; Noes 32.
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, John Fee, David Ford, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey.
Noes
Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Wallace Day Centre, Lisburn

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the House.
The Down Lisburn Trust area has the highest proportion of children and young adults with learning disabilities of all the trusts in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, and yet it receives the least funding. Yesterday, I spoke to officials from that board, who confirmed that the Down Lisburn Trust receives 6% less funding than any other trust.
People with learning disabilities have specific needs, and they deserve a service that reflects those needs. Identifying and assessing those needs, to assist planning and co-ordination of services, is essential. Many needs are not being met, and the situation will continue to deteriorate if immediate action is not taken. Inadequate funding is the main reason that the situation has been created.
Many people with learning disabilities depend on the service that the Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre, formerly known as the Wallace day centre, provides. Often it is their only opportunity for social contact and the security of a structured environment that enables them to develop. Current provision is not sufficient to meet demand, and as most clients make the transition from the education system and need adult care support services, this does not bode well for the future.
The centre caters for 99 people. The conditions are absolutely appalling, and it is in need of complete refurbishment and extension. Access via the main entrance is inadeqate, resulting in clients having to negotiate between moving cars and buses to get to it. The front doors are not automatic, making it difficult for access to the building by wheelchair users, and there is no cover to gain access to transport. In bad weather the clients, drivers, and attendants all get soaked. A mobile unit is situated away from the main building, and there is no protection against the weather when getting from there to the centre for meals and therapy. There are too few special needs toilets, which means that clients have to queue. On many occasions, staff have to use hoists to facilitate clients’ toilet needs, which is both embarrassing and an insult to their dignity.
There is so much overcrowding that wheelchairs cannot be accommodated in the room catering for people needing intensive support. They have to be placed in chairs, and their wheelchairs stored in the assembly hall. The effect of this is that many people who are wheelchair-bound have no mobility while in the centre. The dining facility is also inadequate for the numbers attending the centre; many have to eat their lunch in the assembly hall. Frozen dinners are sent from Downpatrick, and there have been several reports of dissatisfaction with the quality of these meals. Assembly hall windows are permanently locked resulting in inadequate ventilation.
These dreadful conditions are having a serious effect on the morale of clients, their families and carers, and, above all, the staff. There is no staff room; sickness levels are high; and there is no cover for staff on sick leave, unless it is for long-term illness. This results in further pressure on staff to ensure continuity for these clients by covering the duties of their colleagues on sick leave.
Down Lisburn Trust has been operating a policy of discontinued service for clients aged over 45 to make way for new clients. That has led to much distress, because clients have been denied access to friends and their familiar, regular routines. It also creates much worry for their carers, many of whom are elderly and may be experiencing difficulty in caring for their loved ones. The policy is unfair, and contravenes the principles of equality espoused in the Good Friday Agreement. Under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it amounts to age discrimination in the Down Lisburn Trust equality scheme.
Given the announcement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister yesterday that Northern Ireland was going ahead of Britain and Europe in extending the protection against discrimination to all disabled people in employment, I believe that Down Lisburn Trust should reconsider its policy and extend the same rights to statutory care for those who are unable to work because of the nature of their disability. These people already suffer considerable social disadvantage, and they rely on others to speak out for them. They deserve a service tailored to their needs, and security in the knowledge that the service will be continuous, if that is their choice. I believe that the right to choose is vital, and that many choices should be available to both the disabled and their carers. Facilitation is needed to enable them to take control of their lives and to achieve independence commensurate with their condition.
The social aspect is also important. Every individual is a part of our community, and as such has the right to the opportunity to develop a social network within that community. We should aim to ensure quality of life for people with disabilities and their carers and families. As many options as possible should therefore be available to them, thus permitting them to take control of their lives rather than being the recipients of what others decide should be best for them.
In February, I asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what improvements, if any, were to be made in the provision of services and facilities at Wallace Avenue day centre. The question was AQW 2033/01. The Minister’s reply stated that
"a review of the facilities at Wallace Avenue Day Centre is being undertaken by Down Lisburn Trust with a view to enhancing the physical environment and developing the service provision."
I ask the Minister: what is the timescale for the review? When will the report of that evaluation be available, and what type of consultation will be undertaken?

Mr Ivan Davis: As many public representatives in the Lisburn area have taken a keen interest in the issue, it is possible that there could be repetition, but I will carry on regardless.
Although the issue has only now been brought to the Assembly, many of the area’s representatives, including the MP for Lagan Valley, have taken a keen interest in it. I am delighted that the topic has been brought to the Assembly, and I congratulate Ms Lewsley for that.
It is important to understand that the majority of people being cared for at the centre — they are called clients — do not have the ability to make choices in their lives. They are told what to eat and what to wear. They cannot support themselves.
My first point relates to overcrowding at the centre. At a meeting held in 1999, a trust representative said that the centre was suitable for only 80 people. Today, there are approximately 101 people there, and thus the facilities are seriously overstretched. It seems that the trust offers part-time care — for example, one to two days a week in the centre to some clients — in an attempt to get around the problem of overcrowding.
There are too many people of different abilities in the same room. Therefore the behaviour of some clients affects others. As a result of overcrowding, there is a lack of toilet facilities in the centre, which means that a queue system is in operation for people in wheelchairs. Is this really suitable?
It is worth noting that the dining room is too small. The assembly hall must also be used, and there is a ventilation problem in the hall. Ms Lewsley mentioned the windows. The trust claims that the windows cannot be opened for security reasons. I do not see the logic in not having them open for some period during the day.
My second point is about the mobile unit at the centre. At a recent meeting with people involved in the centre, they commented strongly about the condition of that unit. They used the term "Third World" to describe it because it is over 15 years old. I would have thought that such a deplorable environment would not be acceptable today. I suggest that the mobile unit be replaced by a permanent structure, which should be connected directly with the main section of the building. The reason for this is that clients must move between the two separate sections in all weather conditions. Some form of corridor or protection is badly needed.
It has also been suggested to me that it can be quite hazardous moving from one section to the other during the winter, and clients’ safety must be taken into consideration. Another safety concern is the main entrance to the building itself. Again, a similar situation exists because there is no covering for clients and staff when getting on and off the bus. Traffic congestion is also an issue because of the size of this area and because no automatic doors are provided for easy access to the main building.
My third point is about the section of land that Down Lisburn Trust wants to sell. The Department has commented that its policy is to sell surplus land, but I would make the strong argument that this is not surplus land, but rather it could be put to good use. For instance, it could be landscaped and developed into a garden for clients to enjoy. If this land is sold, serious consideration should be given to putting the finance obtained into the present accommodation.
Even though most of my speech has been negative, I will finish on a positive note. It would be wrong and highly unfair not to mention the wonderful work of staff at the centre. Families of clients have complained to me about the centre’s resources and facilities, but they always mention the commitment and care shown by staff. They work under tremendous pressure and have to deal with the lack of resources. Their hard work must be acknowledged and appreciated.
I would like to know how many people work at the centre. Figures have been provided, but do they accurately reflect the numbers of people who work there? Staff morale must be at an all-time low due to the lack of resources and facilities.
My main concerns are: the overcrowding at the centre; the mobile unit with its safety issues, and the intention of Down Lisburn Trust to sell land at the site.
I hope that the trust and the Minister will pay attention to the debate. Resources are overstretched, and that is why the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must provide extra funds if we are to tackle these serious issues.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank Patricia Lewsley for bringing the matter before the House: I know that she has a particular interest in disability issues.
The problems with learning disabled, and the Wallace Avenue day centre in particular have been ongoing in the Lagan Valley constituency for some time. Many of the problems outlined reflect the situation accurately. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. The learning disabled are among the most vulnerable in our society, and the Down Lisburn area is not coming out too well.
I do not blame the Down Lisburn Trust. It is operating on a budget that does not reflect its needs, and that must be addressed as a matter of priority. Down Lisburn Trust is operating on a budget that — according to the formula of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board — is £9·1 million less than it should be. The learning disabled in Lisburn receive about £1·25 million less than they should. Down Lisburn Trust cannot be expected to deliver the resources required when it is underfunded by £1·25 million. We could do a vast amount of work for the learning disabled in Lisburn if we were given that £1·25 million.
We do not have enough therapists in the area: we cannot get them, and we do not have the resources to get them. Alderman Davis mentioned the mobile unit, and there is talk of replacing it with another mobile unit. That is not satisfactory, and it is not what we need.
We need a total review of the facilities in the Down Lisburn area, and I will deal specifically with the Lagan Valley area. There must be a total review of what is available for the learning disabled. The Wallace Avenue day centre, Seymour Hill, the Hillhall estate and the Beeches Vocational Training Unit should all be reviewed. The review should consider whether what is there will meet the needs of the learning disabled in future.
Lisburn covers a vast area, and it is growing quickly. Learning disability has no boundaries. The more people there are, the more learning disabled there will be. They come from all backgrounds and societies and their problems are no respecters of money, social class or religious denomination.
As Lisburn grows, so the number of people with learning difficulties who require facilities will grow. Mr Davis has already said that the Wallace day centre is overcrowded. Is the centre the right place for those people? Should more money be spent on it, or should a new provision be considered — for example, a new-build, first-class, twenty-first-century centre for people with learning disabilities in the Lisburn area? We must take full account of the needs of those with learning disabilities and decide on the best way to meet those needs.
I will touch briefly on the issue of the Beeches vocational training unit. I would have liked the Minister for Employment and Learning to be present to answer questions on that burning local issue. The European social fund withdrew funding from the unit. The Down Lisburn Trust has stepped in to ensure that funding continues. However, the Department for Employment and Learning has a role to play; it is not simply a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We must consider the training element —

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind the Member that the topic of the debate is the Wallace day centre and that he should stick to that topic.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am conscious of the wording of the subject of the debate. Some young people who attended the Wallace day centre have had to move to the Beeches unit because their families thought that the Wallace day centre was sub-standard. Therefore, the point that I made about the Beeches unit ties in with the subject of the debate because it affects people with learning disabilities in the Down Lisburn Trust area. Nevertheless, I will not dwell on it, other than to say that the Department for Employment and Learning should meet its responsibility and ensure that the unit is kept open.
We must provide the Wallace day centre with the necessary resources to ensure that those with learning disabilities in the Down Lisburn Trust area receive the service that they deserve. We must consider whether the centre is in the right location. If not, we must identify a new site and establish where we will find the resources to develop a purpose-built centre.
It is foolish to suggest that we should sell off land on a site that is already overcrowded. That undermines the work that is being carried out, because any development on the site would be an invasion of the privacy of the young people who attend the centre. It would inhibit them and make life more awkward for them. That is fundamentally wrong.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank PatriciaLewsley for introducing this debate. Like EdwinPoots, I am conscious of the wording of the subject of the debate. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, of which I am a member, is aware of the lack of provision for adults with learning difficulties throughout the North. Groups in the Foyle constituency have lobbied the Committee, and it has taken those concerns on board and has also met with other groups. As previous Members have said, the issue has come to the fore at Lisburn Borough Council meetings not only because of the involvement of individuals but because the parent support group have brought it to the attention of councillors.
Members are aware that the Health Service is underfunded by many millions of pounds. Having taken that on board, we discover that the so-called Cinderella services that deal with mental health, learning disabilities or children seem to fall out of the loop. The issue is not emotive; it is specific to Wallace day centre’s clients and their families, and therefore it does not attract as much media attention as the underfunded acute sector. That makes it easier for boards and trusts to skew funding from such services.
I accept that Down Lisburn Trust has a funding deficit of some £9·1 million, yet it is not perceived as underfunded. I am a Lisburn borough councillor, but as an MLA for West Belfast, I was more aware of the underfunding of the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust. Before the inadequacy of Down Lisburn Trust’s funding was highlighted at a presentation by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, I would never have believed that its shortfall was so large. However, the trust decides how it spends its money, and it is easier to skew funds from the so-called Cinderella services.
Wallace day centre provides a valuable service to its clients and their families. It is sad that decisions are being made without considering the long-term benefits of services. I appreciate the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s attendance today. I hope that she will consider the concerns about Wallace day centre and take account of provision for adults with learning difficulties in general, including the activities of parents in the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust area.
Mr Davis and Ms Lewsley outlined the difficulties faced by the centre’s staff and by its clients and their families. It is a shame that people should have to use or work at a centre with facilities more akin to those in developing countries. The poor condition of Wallace day centre, which is just 20 miles up the road, raises the crucial issue of health and safety at work. We are asking clients to use those facilities, their families to leave them there, and staff to work in the centre. Where is the consideration for health and safety?
I commend the commitment of the staff of Wallace day centre, its clients and their families for their patience and for raising the matter.

Mr Patrick Roche: I shall not repeat Members’ excellent points in support of centres for people with learning disabilities, in particular, Wallace day centre. Mr Poots said that a measure of a civilised society was how well it provided and cared for people with learning disabilities. Recently, I was moved by a visit to the Beeches centre, where I saw how the quality of life and self-confidence of those with learning disabilities was improved.
The massive underfunding of Down Lisburn Trust must be dealt with, otherwise the shortfall will accumulate. In rectifying that underfunding, resources should be redeployed to services for adults with learning difficulties. I congratulate Ms Lewsley on tabling the matter, and give her my complete support.

Mr Billy Bell: Most points have already been made, but I am pleased to be here to support the debate. I am grateful to Ms Lewsley for raising the issue.
I am concerned about the number of people leaving Parkview Special School in the next five years. According to figures provided by the Minister of Education, 46 pupils will be leaving the school, but only 12 pupils have been identified as attending the day centre. What will happen to the other 34 pupils? For your information, Madam Deputy Speaker, this has a bearing on the Wallace day centre. Will 12 more clients be cared for in the already overstreched Wallace day centre? Will the clients attend the centre daily for the full day? My Lagan Valley Colleague Mr Davis and I are tabling questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on that issue. We hope to meet with her soon on another matter, but we will take the opportunity to raise this issue.
A claim is made in a leaflet outlining the facilities and resources available at the Wallace day centre that a fully equipped intensive support unit is available. However, I know that that is not the case. The intensive support unit is so overcrowded that people cannot gain access to it in their wheelchairs. Very few facilities are available in the room.
I am concerned about the proposed sale of land beside the main building. As Mr Davis stressed, overcrowding is the main problem. How can the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety consider selling such land when there is a serious case of overcrowding? Would it not be sensible to use the land to extend the centre and improve facilities in the future?
I would like to pay tribute to the staff at the centre. They do an excellent job, and they deserve more recognition.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I have no hesitation in supporting the Member for Lagan Valley (Ms Lewsley)’s call for enhanced provision of facilities for adults with learning difficulties at the Wallace day centre in Lisburn. On 7 May I asked the Minister for Employment and Learning if she was aware of undercapacity in adult centres. I was concerned about the provision for adults with learning difficulties in Kilronan Special School in Magherafelt, because young people’s parents have been told that they have no guarantee of a place at an adult centre and that their sons or daughters must leave Kilronan when they are 19. I have been granted a meeting with the Minister for Employment and Learning, and I will raise various concerns with her.
There is a problem with insufficient accommodation in adult and day centres. An additional tier should be provided to cater for those people who are between 18 and 35 years of age, and I call for intermediate specialised facilities for that age group. This is an ideal opportunity for Members to represent the interests of those people with learning difficulties who are unable to articulate on their own behalf.
Many young people come from single-parent families, and the removal or non-provision of training can result in parents being disadvantaged, perhaps by having to give up their employment. The therapeutic value of time out of the home environment should not be underestimated, and the advantages for the parent and child are immense and well documented.
Throughout Northern Ireland, groups pay consideration to disadvantaged groups when dealing with funding applications or distribution. There are legal implications, and under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 everyone must be treated equally, regardless of any disability. If those legal implications apply to society, the House must recognise that they also apply to us.
I support the sentiments expressed by the Member for Lagan Valley, Ms Lewsley, and I emphasise the need for immediate action to address the inadequacy of services for adults with learning difficulties.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch de Bhean Lewsley as deis a thabhairt dúinn na seirbhísí a phlé a sholáthraítear ag Ionad Acmhainne agus Measúnaithe Lios na gCearrbhach, ar a dtugtar ionad lae Ascaill Bhailis de ghnáth.
Is príomháis i seirbhís Iontaobhas an Dúin Lios na gCearrbhach do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas foghlama é Ionad Acmhainne agus Measúnaithe Lios na gCearrbhach. Mar gheall ar fheabhas a chaighdeáin seirbhíse, bronnadh Marc Cairte air in 2000.
Faoi láthair, baineann breis agus 100 duine úsáid as an tsaoráid. Cuirtear seirbhísí breise thacaíocht lae ar fáil ag dhá shuíomh eile: seirbhísí lae Dairy Farm ag an Pholl Ghlas agus Ionad Gairneoireachta Chnoc Seymour ag Dún Muirí. Ar na seirbhísí a sholáthraítear ag ionad Ascaill Bhailis tá tacaíocht lae, ealaíona, ceirdeanna, oideachas, áineas agus cúram pearsanta.
I am grateful to Ms Lewsley for the opportunity to discuss the services provided at Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre, commonly referred to as the Wallace Avenue day centre. The Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre is a key facility in Down Lisburn Trust’s service provision for people with learning disabilities, and its high quality of service was recognised by a Charter Mark award in 2000. Currently over 100 people use the facility, and I wish to join other Members in paying tribute to the staff at the centre.
Additional day support services are provided at two other sites: Dairy Farm in Poleglass and Seymour Hill Horticultural Centre in Dunmurry. Fifty-two staff are employed at the Wallace Avenue, Poleglass and Dunmurry sites. The services provided at the Wallace Avenue facility include day support, arts and crafts, education and personal care. The service has close links with the Lisburn YMCA and with Stepping Stones, a voluntary day support service that can provide greater choice and diversity of day support.
There are pressures on accommodation. New places become available only when the current attendees move to new settings as a result of a change in their care needs. The Beeches vocational training unit in Aghalee is not mentioned in the motion, but the trust and the board have agreed a funding arrangement that will ensure continued service provision there for this financial year. They are also exploring longer-term financial arrangements for that unit with the Department for Employment and Learning.
The trust estimates that, between now and 2006, 40 people will leave local special schools. Of that number, it is estimated that 16 will require places at the Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre. The remaining 24 people will need a diverse range of placements to meet their individual needs. The trust accepts, as we all do, that facilities at the Wallace Avenue centre require refurbishment, and the trust is committed to getting funding to bring the centre up to standard.
A review of the facilities is under way. Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust is committed to obtaining the necessary funding with which to enhance the physical environment of the centre and to develop service provision. The trust has assured the parents and carers of those who use the centre that there will be full and informed consultation with them in relation to any proposed developments.
There has been regular contact with the Lisburn and district Mencap group in relation to services provided at the Wallace Avenue centre. Mencap has been advised of the setting up of a joint planning group, comprising all relevant stakeholders, to plan future day-support services in the Lisburn area. Arrangements for the inaugural meeting of that group are under way.
The trust advises that the outline planning application that it submitted for the land adjacent to the day centre on Wallace Avenue is intended to ascertain whether permission would be granted. No proposals have been put to the trust board about the sale of the land. That would require full consultation with all stakeholders. Such consultation would include an equality impact assessment. Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust has also clearly stated at meetings with relevant stakeholders and public representatives that there is no threat to the future of the Wallace Avenue centre. That remains the case. It is the refurbishment of the centre — the obtaining of funding to enhance the physical environment of the centre and to develop service provision in the centre — that is being discussed.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of growing demand for statutory day care places, particularly for dependent young people who cannot access any other day activities. The Department’s priorities for action state that
"Boards and Trusts should continue to expand the provision of day care and respite places for people with a learning disability".
Some of the additional funding allocated to the four boards to develop community services will be, therefore, available for that purpose. Since 1999, an additional £4 million has been allocated to the learning disability programme. Expenditure in 2000-01 totalled just over £100 million. I await the health and social services boards’ health and welfare investment plans, which will indicate how each board proposes to use additional funding allocated by the Department this year for the development of community services. It will then be for each board to ensure that the funding of learning disability services in its area reflects local need. I will look at the boards’ investment plans to see how they set out their spending plans in each of the programmes of care in their trust area. As employers, they are responsible for ensuring that staff work in a safe environment and that facilities comply with the relevant health and safety legislation.
I want to ensure that people with disabilities can be supported to do the same things as their non-disabled peers. As other Members have said, that requires access to education, training and employment. It means pursuing hobbies, leisure activities and sports, and it requires co-operation among the relevant service providers in those fields. It requires statutory and voluntary sector service providers to work in tandem, harnessing their respective expertise for the benefit of the individual.
Those who need more supportive day care must be offered diversity and innovative activities that develop their skills and talents. That is the model that health and social services are pursuing and will be supporting, and which I expect to see reflected in the investment plans that I receive regarding how the extra money that is being made available for services in the community will be spent. Clearly, as with all aspects of the service, there will be pressures. All services provided by boards and trusts will need to be looked at in that respect, but it is with a view to enhancing the services provided to users.
The development of a model that reflects the aspirations of people with learning disabilities, and that promotes the inclusive society that the Assembly supports and that is reflected in the Executive’s Programme for Government, will need additional resources, and that will mean difficult choices in the determination of priorities in the 2002-03 spending review. It will also mean drawing on the expertise of service users to develop and implement strategies. Last week, I was pleased to have been asked to launch a report called ‘A Fair Chance’. It is no secret that I see promoting equality and tackling social exclusion as the cornerstones of responsive and effective health and social services.
The needs of people with learning disabilities must be seen as a top priority, as they suffer some of the worst forms of exclusion from a quality of life that many of us take for granted. ‘A Fair Chance’ enables the health and personal social services family to improve arrangements for communicating with and consulting those with learning disabilities. Therefore, the joint planning group that is being established, which will comprise all relevant stakeholders, should assist us greatly in the task ahead.
Adjourned at 6.26 pm.